Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #618835 > unrolled thread

How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

Started by	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
First post	2023-08-24 20:15 -0700
Last post	2023-09-06 07:20 +0200
Articles	17 on this page of 77 — 15 participants

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

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#619113

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-08-28 10:04 -0400
Message-ID	<uci9h2$1nj5d$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#619076

On 8/27/2023 8:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27-Aug-23 11:11 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
[]

> I see that you're adopting the standard crank practice of introducing 
> non-standard abbreviations, which you do not define, and then proceeding 
> to use them in the apparent expectation that people will know what you 
> mean.

He invents entire words (without definitions) like that, in case you 
haven't noticed.

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

#619049

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-27 08:04 -0700
Message-ID	<cc93b073-507b-4d2d-9aa7-6a8bd63804e5n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619041

On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 14:56:40 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> >>> 
> >>> Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> >>> 
> >>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> >> Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his 
> >> twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if 
> >> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can 
> >> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > 
> > It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the endorsement of Minkowski and his 
> > mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made relativity a "respectable" theory. 
> > 
> > As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of 
> > 4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then. 
> > 
> > After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert), 
> > the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not physicists. 
> > 
> > Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME. 
> > 
> > All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET. 
> > 
> > I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but 
> > TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles that followed it as relativists). 
> > 
> > More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them). 
> > 
> > Are you within the 0.01%? 
> > 
> > 
> >
> What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only describe 

And speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that Your insane guru had to announce its oldest, very important
part false, as it didn't want to fit his madness.

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

#618963 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-08-26 12:24 -0700
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<64EA5156.3073@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#618925

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> >
> > Why can't they defend that with reason?
> >
> > Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> 
> Sylvia.

"the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
"the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
"the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties.

Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.

a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
 twenties didn't know what gravity was!

a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties wasn't even good at math.

Wasn't good at math.
Wasn't good at Gravity.

He's good at building bombs!

"Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905) 

"...new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears

almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

      This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,

and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-

ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this

type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy

the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,

such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by

air."  -Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein wrote:

"According to these discussions and a remark you made yourself when
you were visiting me
it seems to be desirable to have a device which automatically brings
to explosion
a torpedo passing below a ship at the right moment.
I have an idea for an electro-magnetic device for this purpose which I
would like to submit to you for your judgement.
S is an electro-magnet producing an alternating magnetic field with
vertical axis. s and s' are two coils with vertical axis connected in
serie with opposite magnetic axis, which are located symmetrically to
S.
The current created by induction in those two coils may be multiplied
by tubes (current i). The device is set in function only at a moment
when
the torpedo is far enough from the emitting ship to avoid the magnetic
influence of the latter. As long as the torpedo is on the way i will
vanish for reasons of symmetry. The torpedo is supposed to travel deep
enough so that it will not hit the target directly but pass below it.
When the torpedo approaches the target there will be created through
the
nearby parts of the ship's hull an additional (induced) alternative
magnetic field which at first will be stronger in s than in s'. There
is
now created a current i the intensity of which will change according
to
the following diagrams L ' U PV... M corresponds to the moment when
the torpedo passes under the middle of the ship. At this moment i will
again vanish for reasons of symmetry. This is the moment to put the
explosion into action. It will be easy to construct an electrical
contact device which functions if a current is first initiated and
goes
again to zero afterwards. " -Albert Einstein 

Now, here is a question I have. 

"Einstein was thinking about the prob-
lem for about ten minutes, and finally
chose momentum and gave the reasons" -Lt. Stephen Brunauer, head of the High Explosives Division 

Lt. Stephen Brunauer, head of the High Explosives Division  presented his problem to Albert Einstein.

Question: How did Albert Einstein answered the question in ten minutes????

-- 
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]

#618968

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 13:22 -0700
Message-ID	<5a57f34a-3466-4ea8-a38b-f555cd72792en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618963

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:23:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote: 
> > 
> > On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > 
> > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > 
> > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > 
> > Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his 
> > twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if 
> > it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can 
> > contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then. 
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks. 

Stop fantasising. It's silly and unbecoming of an adult.

--
Jan

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

#618989

From	Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 17:41 -0500
Message-ID	<ucdv2l$jcgs$1@solani.org>
In reply to	#618963

On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
>>>
>>> Why can't they defend that with reason?
>>>
>>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
>>

Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He 
makes a valid point.

I have two points to make which might help you.

1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can 
come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions 
with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that 
field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes 
the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you 
are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when 
nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you 
_analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you 
have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation 
in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions 
made in the theory of relativity.

I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in 
sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was 
happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot 
help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your 
questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they 
do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned 
above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not 
that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you.

That's one point.

2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in 
this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you 
pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the 
rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will 
work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of 
your own abilities.

You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by 
yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because 
it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd 
know you should pursue other fields.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

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

#618990

From	"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 16:30 -0700
Message-ID	<b77ae8b3-b165-479d-aee2-b1f92ebf29ben@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618989

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> >>> 
> >>> Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> >>> 
> >>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> >>
> Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He 
> makes a valid point. 
> 
> I have two points to make which might help you. 
> 
> 1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can 
> come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions 
> with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that 
> field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes 
> the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you 
> are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when 
> nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you 
> _analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you 
> have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation 
> in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions 
> made in the theory of relativity. 
> 
> I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in 
> sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was 
> happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot 
> help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your 
> questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they 
> do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned 
> above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not 
> that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you. 
> 
> That's one point. 
> 
> 2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in 
> this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you 
> pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the 
> rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will 
> work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of 
> your own abilities. 
> 
> You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by 
> yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because 
> it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd 
> know you should pursue other fields. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com

You need more than slow time for a fast moving clock.
You need its slow moving parts with it.
This is the issue of the spatial retarded clock.

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

#618992

From	"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 16:37 -0700
Message-ID	<05da0a4f-c4dc-4032-8f6f-493d9f1083b9n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618989

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> >>> 
> >>> Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> >>> 
> >>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> >>
> Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He 
> makes a valid point. 
> 
> I have two points to make which might help you. 
> 
> 1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can 
> come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions 
> with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that 
> field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes 
> the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you 
> are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when 
> nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you 
> _analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you 
> have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation 
> in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions 
> made in the theory of relativity. 
> 
> I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in 
> sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was 
> happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot 
> help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your 
> questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they 
> do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned 
> above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not 
> that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you. 
> 
> That's one point. 
> 
> 2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in 
> this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you 
> pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the 
> rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will 
> work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of 
> your own abilities. 
> 
> You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by 
> yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because 
> it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd 
> know you should pursue other fields. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com

How can you measure  the difference between absolute and relative motion?
If the atom can move ahead of light at near light speed it creates a
motion black hole leaving absolute light speed behind. The atom competes
with light's absolute speed. It must have an absolute speed to do it.

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

#618998

From	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 17:03 -0700
Message-ID	<bc9a3a72-6418-48d8-823d-29bb641449edn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618989

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:41:28 PM UTC-3, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> >>> 
> >>> Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> >>> 
> >>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> >>
> Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He 
> makes a valid point. 
> 
> I have two points to make which might help you. 
> 
> 1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can 
> come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions 
> with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that 
> field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes 
> the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you 
> are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when 
> nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you 
> _analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you 
> have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation 
> in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions 
> made in the theory of relativity. 
> 
> I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in 
> sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was 
> happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot 
> help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your 
> questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they 
> do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned 
> above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not 
> that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you. 
> 
> That's one point. 
> 
> 2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in 
> this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you 
> pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the 
> rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will 
> work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of 
> your own abilities. 
> 
> You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by 
> yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because 
> it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd 
> know you should pursue other fields. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com


OR, he should stop asking why they eat smelly rotten fish.

Instead, post about facts that show that the smelly fish is rotten, instead of criticizing food habits of relativists.

Post one fact after another, along with consequences for the health of rotten fish eaters.

But don't criticize them for doing so. They've eaten rotten fish for so long that their immune system adapted to survive.

Relativists, in this way, have becoming mutants. They can't eat normal food.

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

#619022

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-08-26 21:03 -0700
Message-ID	<90b78916-765a-4ef0-9849-0587863563bfn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618998

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:03:14 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> OR, he should stop asking why they eat smelly rotten fish. 
> 
> Instead, post about facts that show that the smelly fish is rotten, instead of criticizing food habits of relativists. 
> 
> Post one fact after another, along with consequences for the health of rotten fish eaters. 
> 
> But don't criticize them for doing so. They've eaten rotten fish for so long that their immune system adapted to survive. 
> 
> Relativists, in this way, have becoming mutants. They can't eat normal food.

Actually, Richard, YOU are the one eating the smelly, rotten fish.  The fresh fish is that the speed of light is constant,
independent of the motion of source or receiver.  There's the FIRST fact that you claim you want.

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

#619023

From	Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 23:20 -0500
Message-ID	<uceiua$jlqf$1@solani.org>
In reply to	#618998

On 8/26/2023 7:03 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:41:28 PM UTC-3, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't they defend that with reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
>>>>
>> Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He
>> makes a valid point.
>>
>> I have two points to make which might help you.
>>
>> 1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can
>> come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions
>> with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that
>> field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes
>> the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you
>> are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when
>> nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you
>> _analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you
>> have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation
>> in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions
>> made in the theory of relativity.
>>
>> I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in
>> sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was
>> happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot
>> help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your
>> questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they
>> do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned
>> above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not
>> that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you.
>>
>> That's one point.
>>
>> 2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in
>> this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you
>> pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the
>> rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will
>> work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of
>> your own abilities.
>>
>> You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by
>> yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because
>> it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd
>> know you should pursue other fields.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> OR, he should stop asking why they eat smelly rotten fish.
> 
> Instead, post about facts that show that the smelly fish is rotten, instead of criticizing food habits of relativists.
> 
> Post one fact after another, along with consequences for the health of rotten fish eaters.
> 
> But don't criticize them for doing so. They've eaten rotten fish for so long that their immune system adapted to survive.
> 
> Relativists, in this way, have becoming mutants. They can't eat normal food.
> 


Hahhahah :-))

But they don't see it that way. And they're not fools. Neither are you. 
Physics is ultimately a personal endeavor. Each person makes his or her 
own take of it. If you agree to that, the road to choose gets clear to 
see, as I said above; you either manage to convince yourself that this 
theory is valid, or prove to yourself that it doesn't make sense and 
move on. No interactions with the mutants is required.

Yes, "mutations" happen, and when they do, it is not yet clear in the 
long term they'll be beneficial or destructive. You just have to leave 
them behind and move on.

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

#619059

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-08-27 11:09 -0700
Message-ID	<64EB9160.65F@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#618963

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> > >
> > > Why can't they defend that with reason?
> > >
> > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> >
> > Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> > it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> > contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> 
> "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
> "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
> "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> twenties.
> 
> Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.
> 
> a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
>  twenties didn't know what gravity was!
> 
> a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> twenties wasn't even good at math.
> 
> Wasn't good at math.
> Wasn't good at Gravity.
> 
> He's good at building bombs!
> 
> "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905)
> 
> "...new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears
> 
> almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
> 
>       This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
> 
> and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-
> 
> ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this
> 
> type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy
> 
> the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,
> 
> such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
> 
> air."  -Albert Einstein



What the 'scientific community' doesn't understand is that since 1905 Albert Einstein made a beeline
to building an atomic bomb. That was his baby. That was His experiment..."prove possible - to test this theory" of his.

It had noting about killing Germans. It simply was just an ...experiment.  ("to test this theory")



By 1939..in order to "test this theory", he needed money to buy more uranium, so he conned the USA government by telling them
'If you don't give me the fuckin money you are all going to die!'


"...b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being car-

ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by

providing funds, ..."



In order words, Albert Einstein (a government unto himself) was selling 'protection'.


to speed up the experimental work
which is at present
being carried on within the limits
of the budgets of University laboratories




So, he wouldn't have taken TEN YEARS to finish General Relativity if he wasn't
soooo preoccupied  "to test this theory". 





Here is his blueprint to build an atomic bomb

Albert Einstein's letters to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first


OPM



















-- 
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]

#619065

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-08-27 12:18 -0700
Message-ID	<64EBA168.B88@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#619059

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't they defend that with reason?
> > > >
> > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> > >
> > > Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> > > it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> > > contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> >
> > "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
> > "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
> > "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > twenties.
> >
> > Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.
> >
> > a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >  twenties didn't know what gravity was!
> >
> > a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > twenties wasn't even good at math.
> >
> > Wasn't good at math.
> > Wasn't good at Gravity.
> >
> > He's good at building bombs!
> >
> > "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905)
> >
> > "...new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears
> >
> > almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
> >
> >       This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
> >
> > and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-
> >
> > ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this
> >
> > type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy
> >
> > the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,
> >
> > such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
> >
> > air."  -Albert Einstein
> 
> What the 'scientific community' doesn't understand is that since 1905 Albert Einstein made a beeline
> to building an atomic bomb. That was his baby. That was His experiment..."prove possible - to test this theory" of his.
> 
> It had noting about killing Germans. It simply was just an ...experiment.  ("to test this theory")
> 
> By 1939..in order to "test this theory", he needed money to buy more uranium, so he conned the USA government by telling them
> 'If you don't give me the fuckin money you are all going to die!'
> 
> "...b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being car-
> 
> ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by
> 
> providing funds, ..."
> 
> In order words, Albert Einstein (a government unto himself) was selling 'protection'.
> 
> to speed up the experimental work
> which is at present
> being carried on within the limits
> of the budgets of University laboratories
> 
> So, he wouldn't have taken TEN YEARS to finish General Relativity if he wasn't
> soooo preoccupied  "to test this theory".
> 
> Here is his blueprint to build an atomic bomb
> 
> Albert Einstein's letters to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first
> 
> OPM (other people's money)

"It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas." 
..

"By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.

It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas." 




-- 
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]

#619066

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-08-27 12:21 -0700
Message-ID	<64EBA23D.2DAB@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#619065

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> > > >
> > > > Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > > twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> > > > it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> > > > contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> > > >
> > > > Sylvia.
> > >
> > > "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
> > > "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
> > > "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > twenties.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.
> > >
> > > a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > >  twenties didn't know what gravity was!
> > >
> > > a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > twenties wasn't even good at math.
> > >
> > > Wasn't good at math.
> > > Wasn't good at Gravity.
> > >
> > > He's good at building bombs!
> > >
> > > "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905)
> > >
> > > "...new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears
> > >
> > > almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
> > >
> > >       This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
> > >
> > > and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-
> > >
> > > ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this
> > >
> > > type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy
> > >
> > > the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,
> > >
> > > such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
> > >
> > > air."  -Albert Einstein
> >
> > What the 'scientific community' doesn't understand is that since 1905 Albert Einstein made a beeline
> > to building an atomic bomb. That was his baby. That was His experiment..."prove possible - to test this theory" of his.
> >
> > It had noting about killing Germans. It simply was just an ...experiment.  ("to test this theory")
> >
> > By 1939..in order to "test this theory", he needed money to buy more uranium, so he conned the USA government by telling them
> > 'If you don't give me the fuckin money you are all going to die!'
> >
> > "...b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being car-
> >
> > ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by
> >
> > providing funds, ..."
> >
> > In order words, Albert Einstein (a government unto himself) was selling 'protection'.
> >
> > to speed up the experimental work
> > which is at present
> > being carried on within the limits
> > of the budgets of University laboratories
> >
> > So, he wouldn't have taken TEN YEARS to finish General Relativity if he wasn't
> > soooo preoccupied  "to test this theory".
> >
> > Here is his blueprint to build an atomic bomb
> >
> > Albert Einstein's letters to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> > https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first
> >
> > OPM (other people's money)
> 
> "It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas."
> ..
> 
> "By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
> conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
> However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
> have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
> 
> It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas."

"At the time, radium was a known radioactive element that emitted
radiation and was associated with the release of energy.
Einstein's suggestion to test his theory using radium salts was based on
the understanding that radioactive materials, like radium,
undergo spontaneous disintegration, resulting in the emission of
radiation and the release of energy.

By using radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein
envisioned conducting experiments to observe whether there would be any
detectable changes in
the mass of the radioactive substances as they emitted energy. Such
experiments would provide empirical evidence to support or
validate his mass-energy equivalence theory, as described by the
equation E=mc²." 



-- 
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]

#619068

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-08-27 12:52 -0700
Message-ID	<64EBA960.27D7@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#619066

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > > > twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> > > > > it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> > > > > contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
> > > > "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
> > > > "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > > twenties.
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > > twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.
> > > >
> > > > a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > >  twenties didn't know what gravity was!
> > > >
> > > > a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> > > > twenties wasn't even good at math.
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't good at math.
> > > > Wasn't good at Gravity.
> > > >
> > > > He's good at building bombs!
> > > >
> > > > "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905)
> > > >
> > > > "...new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears
> > > >
> > > > almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.
> > > >
> > > >       This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,
> > > >
> > > > and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-
> > > >
> > > > ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this
> > > >
> > > > type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy
> > > >
> > > > the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,
> > > >
> > > > such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by
> > > >
> > > > air."  -Albert Einstein
> > >
> > > What the 'scientific community' doesn't understand is that since 1905 Albert Einstein made a beeline
> > > to building an atomic bomb. That was his baby. That was His experiment..."prove possible - to test this theory" of his.
> > >
> > > It had noting about killing Germans. It simply was just an ...experiment.  ("to test this theory")
> > >
> > > By 1939..in order to "test this theory", he needed money to buy more uranium, so he conned the USA government by telling them
> > > 'If you don't give me the fuckin money you are all going to die!'
> > >
> > > "...b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being car-
> > >
> > > ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by
> > >
> > > providing funds, ..."
> > >
> > > In order words, Albert Einstein (a government unto himself) was selling 'protection'.
> > >
> > > to speed up the experimental work
> > > which is at present
> > > being carried on within the limits
> > > of the budgets of University laboratories
> > >
> > > So, he wouldn't have taken TEN YEARS to finish General Relativity if he wasn't
> > > soooo preoccupied  "to test this theory".
> > >
> > > Here is his blueprint to build an atomic bomb
> > >
> > > Albert Einstein's letters to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> > > https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first
> > >
> > > OPM (other people's money)
> >
> > "It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas."
> > ..
> >
> > "By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
> > conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
> > However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
> > have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
> >
> > It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas."
> 
> "At the time, radium was a known radioactive element that emitted
> radiation and was associated with the release of energy.
> Einstein's suggestion to test his theory using radium salts was based on
> the understanding that radioactive materials, like radium,
> undergo spontaneous disintegration, resulting in the emission of
> radiation and the release of energy.
> 
> By using radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein
> envisioned conducting experiments to observe whether there would be any
> detectable changes in
> the mass of the radioactive substances as they emitted energy. Such
> experiments would provide empirical evidence to support or
> validate his mass-energy equivalence theory, as described by the
> equation E=mc²."


"The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate

quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia.

while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo." --Albert Einstein August 2nd 1939


'the price of radium in the 1920s was $100,000 a gram' 


How much is a $100,000 in today's money? about $1,528,455 



In other words, albert einstien's friends came to his house to complain that
his experiment requires...TONs of uranium. 

That would cost around ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.




"Enrico Fermi was intensively involved with Einstein's theory of relativity and traced the hidden power of atomic nuclei.
In 1923, he wrote that it would probably not be possible to release this energy in the near future, "because
the first effect would be an explosion so terrible that it would tear the physicist who tried it to pieces". "



Anybody here..intensively involved with Einstein's theory of relativity, (besides me) ...i don't think so.???


I'm the only smartest guy in the room.




 





-- 
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]

#619698

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-09-05 08:45 +0200
Message-ID	<klo10qFe2usU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619059

Am 27.08.2023 um 20:09 schrieb The Starmaker:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't they defend that with reason?
>>>>
>>>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
>>>
>>> Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
>>> twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
>>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
>>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
>> "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
>> "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
>> twenties.
>>
>> Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
>> twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.

Also not mentioned were acceleration and induction.

SRT is more or less 'acceleration free', which includes gravity.

It is not a particularily likely restriction, because some sort of 
gravity or other forms of acceleration should be present everywhere.

Also Einstein's discription of induction was, at least, odd, but 
actually the word 'induction' cannot be found at all in his paper.

So we are not sure, whether or not he had induction in mind. But at 
least he mentioned moving magnets and wires and electric fields inside 
conductors.

Missing was, for instance, the requirement for a conductor to form a 
closed loop, if current shall flow throug it.

Usually the influence of moving magnets upon loops of wire is called 
'induction', but not so in Einstein's paper.

Also streight linear motion with constant velocity is a rather harsch 
restriction, because that's not how the universe behaves.

...

TH

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

#619757

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-09-05 22:00 -0700
Message-ID	<64F8075E.1E17@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#619698

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 27.08.2023 um 20:09 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why can't they defend that with reason?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> >>>
> >>> Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >>> twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
> >>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
> >>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> "the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
> >> "the vast majority of physicists" are too stupid to contradict what they don't understand!
> >> "the vast majority of physicists" didn't and don't understand a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >> twenties.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
> >> twenties didn't even mentioned Gravity once.
> 
> Also not mentioned were acceleration and induction.
> 
> SRT is more or less 'acceleration free', which includes gravity.
> 
> It is not a particularily likely restriction, because some sort of
> gravity or other forms of acceleration should be present everywhere.
> 
> Also Einstein's discription of induction was, at least, odd, but
> actually the word 'induction' cannot be found at all in his paper.
> 
> So we are not sure, whether or not he had induction in mind. But at
> least he mentioned moving magnets and wires and electric fields inside
> conductors.
> 
> Missing was, for instance, the requirement for a conductor to form a
> closed loop, if current shall flow throug it.
> 
> Usually the influence of moving magnets upon loops of wire is called
> 'induction', but not so in Einstein's paper.
> 
> Also streight linear motion with constant velocity is a rather harsch
> restriction, because that's not how the universe behaves.
> 
> ...
> 
> TH

Simply, Albert Einstein didn't think about "acceleration". Like he
forgot Gravity existed then.






-- 
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]

#619758

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-09-06 07:20 +0200
Message-ID	<klqge0FqabpU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619757

Am 06.09.2023 um 07:00 schrieb The Starmaker:

>> Also streight linear motion with constant velocity is a rather harsch
>> restriction, because that's not how the universe behaves.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> TH
>
> Simply, Albert Einstein didn't think about "acceleration". Like he
> forgot Gravity existed then.
>

Well, actually SRT is about a special case, where no gravity exists.

This is not a particularly likely scenario, but somehow possible as 
simplification.

He didn't consider the effects of acceleration in a paragrapg about 
movement from point A back to point A, where he assumed, this would also 
be possible along any polygonal line.


But in SRT we have also another restriction: v was defined as constant 
velocity.

And constant velocity along 'any polygonal line' is impossible, because 
that would cause infinite acceleration.


TH


>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

csiph-web

How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

Contents

#619113

#619049

#618963 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

#618968

#618989

#618990

#618992

#618998

#619022

#619023

#619059

#619065

#619066

#619068

#619698

#619757

#619758