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	20 on this page of 78 — 15 participants

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

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

#618925

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
Date	2023-08-26 17:03 +1000
Message-ID	<kktmekF4s46U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#618835

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.

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

#618927

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 02:14 -0700
Message-ID	<23908ef6-5874-476f-b862-9663df826595n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618925

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 09:03:52 UTC+2, 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? 

Because it was telling them what they wanted to hear, of
course.

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

#618942

From	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 06:59 -0700
Message-ID	<29e45881-de53-4fcf-bea2-6d06509f56fen@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618925

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%?

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

#618950

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-08-26 08:19 -0700
Message-ID	<d90d4e53-63fa-4f2b-b003-fe69f5c17db1n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618942

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them). 
> 
> Are you within the 0.01%?

Are YOU?  Probability says you are NOT :-))

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

#618953

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 08:54 -0700
Message-ID	<f1155d6f-5103-4ce5-b2d8-2a3d9b799728n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618950

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 17:19:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > 
> > More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them). 
> > 
> > Are you within the 0.01%?
> Are YOU? Probability says you are NOT :-))

No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says
he's probably not.

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

#618955

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-08-26 11:00 -0700
Message-ID	<825842dc-b0f3-4f01-9319-eb8cb8098873n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618953

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 17:19:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> >
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > > More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them). 
> > > 
> > > Are you within the 0.01%? 
> >
> > Are YOU? Probability says you are NOT :-))
>
> No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says 
> he's probably not.

Four nines certainty is good enough for me.  Now, old half brain, go look for the other half that
you lost somewhere.

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

#618961

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 12:08 -0700
Message-ID	<b34cdd28-c9a1-48e4-aae2-b5fd826a4c04n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618955

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > 
> > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 17:19:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them). 
> > > > 
> > > > Are you within the 0.01%? 
> > > 
> > > Are YOU? Probability says you are NOT :-)) 
> > 
> > No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says 
> > he's probably not.
> Four nines certainty is good enough for me.

A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much.

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

#618977

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-08-26 14:12 -0700
Message-ID	<eef7e322-3f3a-402f-846b-036b5cbe91edn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618961

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> >
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > 
> > > No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says 
> > > he's probably not. 
> >
> > Four nines certainty is good enough for me.
>
> A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much.

Apparently, half-brain Wozzy would work for a shyster that only gave one chance
in 10000 that he would get paid :-))  He needs to find the other half of his brain
before he starves to death.

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

#618984

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 14:48 -0700
Message-ID	<5c4dfb01-c925-4cb6-8c0e-5706ea6e7d09n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618977

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 23:12:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > 
> > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says 
> > > > he's probably not. 
> > > 
> > > Four nines certainty is good enough for me. 
> > 
> > A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much.
> Apparently, half-brain Wozzy would work for a shyster that only gave one chance 
> in 10000 that he would get paid :-))

Apparently , relativistic trash is spitting and slandering,
as expected from relativistic trash.

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

#618987

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-08-26 15:18 -0700
Message-ID	<af108947-1c11-44a9-88c6-bac685449890n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618984

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:48:36 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 23:12:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> >
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says 
> > > > > he's probably not. 
> > > > 
> > > > Four nines certainty is good enough for me. 
> > > 
> > > A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much. 
> >
> > Apparently, half-brain Wozzy would work for a shyster that only gave one chance 
> > in 10000 that he would get paid :-))
>
> Apparently , relativistic trash is spitting and slandering, 
> as expected from relativistic trash.

Hypocrite Half-Brain Wozzy goes about slandering left and right, but gets upset when
he gets some of his own medicine.  Whatsamatta, HHB Wozzy-boy, truth hurt?

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

#618969

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 13:37 -0700
Message-ID	<f8108bdd-4cd8-42b3-9137-415947f9c9den@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618942

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:59:17 AM UTC-7, 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. 

Another Hollywood fantasy by a desperate emotionally troubled man.

> 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. 

Yes, and?

> 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. 

What rubbish. And BTW, the term is either "differential geometry" or (the quaint old one),
"absolute calculus". There is no such thing as "absolute differential geometry".
Anyway, nobody "HAD" to follow anything, absolute calculus is just a nice
mathematical tool to have. Why wouldn't anyone want not to use it? You also
avoid, say, the Lebesgue integral just because? Silly.

> Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME. 

The press got involved as usual but this is neither peculiar to Einstein
nor his fault.

> All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET. 

If you are inclined to believe propaganda in general, that's what you get.
Why is it so surprising to you and how does Einstein as such enter into it?

> 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). 

Again, criticise the media.

> More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).

Perhaps. But none of your posts here on the subject of relativity or Einstein
are correct. They are false 100% not only on the purely technical grounds
(of which you have no first clue BTW) but also simply plain weird on the
psychological (or psychiatric perhaps) level.

--
Jan

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

#619041

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
Date	2023-08-27 22:56 +1000
Message-ID	<kl0vg4Fkpe3U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#618942

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 
models that could represent the universe. It can describe many such 
models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes physics to 
determine which model is the correct one.

Sylvia.

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

#619042 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr>
Date	2023-08-27 13:11 +0000
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<P8b_aox3lWLZYtbyEPW1QvQgDDY@jntp>
In reply to	#619041

Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> 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 
> models that could represent the universe. It can describe many such 
> models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes physics to 
> determine which model is the correct one.
> 
> Sylvia.

Not necessarily.

If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel 
(3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite similar.
But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it 
differs.

We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.

The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I think, 
as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions are the 
same.

Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR 
equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.

They therefore have no chance of being true. None.

We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.

I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in 
apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that they 
no longer understood anything.

In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.

The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what he 
was talking about.

A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).

https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...

R.H.

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

#619043 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-27 15:19 +0200
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<kl10qpFld1dU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619042

On 2023-08-27 13:11:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> 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 models that could represent the universe. It can describe many 
>> such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes 
>> physics to determine which model is the correct one.
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel 
> (3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite 
> similar.
> But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it 
> differs.
> 
> We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
> 
> The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I 
> think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions 
> are the same.
> 
> Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR 
> equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
> 
> They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
> 
> We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
> 
> I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in 
> apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that 
> they no longer understood anything.
> 
> In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
> 
> The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what 
> he was talking about.
> 
> A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
> 
> https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler... 
> 

So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your 
posts. Quelle surprise.

-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

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

#619044 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr>
Date	2023-08-27 13:21 +0000
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<ge2mjnIk5ai3qRbWxFrl0fZHW8k@jntp>
In reply to	#619043

Le 27/08/2023 à 15:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-08-27 13:11:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>> Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>> 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 models that could represent the universe. It can describe many 
>>> such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes 
>>> physics to determine which model is the correct one.
>>> 
>>> Sylvia.
>> 
>> Not necessarily.
>> 
>> If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel 
>> (3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite 
>> similar.
>> But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it 
>> differs.
>> 
>> We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
>> 
>> The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I 
>> think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions 
>> are the same.
>> 
>> Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR 
>> equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
>> 
>> They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
>> 
>> We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
>> 
>> I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in 
>> apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that 
>> they no longer understood anything.
>> 
>> In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
>> 
>> The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what 
>> he was talking about.
>> 
>> A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler... 
>> 
>> 
> 
> So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your 
> posts. Quelle surprise.

Oui, je sais, je suis magnifique.

El Magnifico.

En espagnol.

Tu parles espagnol, toi? 

R.H.

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

#619046 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-27 16:21 +0200
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<kl14f8Fm010U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619044

On 2023-08-27 13:21:08 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 27/08/2023 à 15:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2023-08-27 13:11:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>> 
>>> Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>>> 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 models that could represent the universe. It can describe many 
>>>> such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes 
>>>> physics to determine which model is the correct one.
>>>> 
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> 
>>> Not necessarily.
>>> 
>>> If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel 
>>> (3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite 
>>> similar.
>>> But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it 
>>> differs.
>>> 
>>> We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
>>> 
>>> The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I 
>>> think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions 
>>> are the same.
>>> 
>>> Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR 
>>> equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
>>> 
>>> They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
>>> 
>>> We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
>>> 
>>> I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in 
>>> apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that 
>>> they no longer understood anything.
>>> 
>>> In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
>>> 
>>> The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what 
>>> he was talking about.
>>> 
>>> A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler... 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your 
>> posts. Quelle surprise.
> 
> Oui, je sais, je suis magnifique.
> 
> El Magnifico.
> 
> En espagnol.
> 
> Tu parles espagnol, toi?

Oui. Tu as oublié l'accent aigu de magnífico.



-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

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

#619048 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr>
Date	2023-08-27 14:31 +0000
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<OByzsyMurvIittyNrUTG048w2gw@jntp>
In reply to	#619046

Le 27/08/2023 à 16:21, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-08-27 13:21:08 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler... 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your 
>>> posts. Quelle surprise.
>> 
>> Oui, je sais, je suis magnifique.
>> 
>> El Magnifico.
>> 
>> En espagnol.
>> 
>> Tu parles espagnol, toi?
> 
> Oui. Tu as oublié l'accent aigu de magnífico.

Ah oui, tu parles espagnol.

R.H.

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

#619076

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
Date	2023-08-28 10:17 +1000
Message-ID	<kl27dnFr25sU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619042

On 27-Aug-23 11:11 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> 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 models that could represent the universe. It can describe 
>> many such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes 
>> physics to determine which model is the correct one.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel 
> (3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite similar.
> But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it 
> differs.
> 
> We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
> 
> The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I 
> think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions 
> are the same.
> 
> Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR 
> equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
> 
> They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
> 
> We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
> 
> I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in 
> apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that 
> they no longer understood anything.
> 
> In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
> 
> The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what he 
> was talking about.
> 
> A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
> 
> https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...
> 
> R.H.

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.

Sylvia.

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

#619093

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-27 21:52 -0700
Message-ID	<dde630da-9724-493e-930b-671da0b3dee7n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619076

On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 02:18:03 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27-Aug-23 11:11 pm, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit : 
> >> 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 models that could represent the universe. It can describe 
> >> many such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes 
> >> physics to determine which model is the correct one. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > 
> > Not necessarily. 
> > 
> > If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel 
> > (3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite similar. 
> > But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it 
> > differs. 
> > 
> > We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation. 
> > 
> > The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I 
> > think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions 
> > are the same. 
> > 
> > Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR 
> > equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds. 
> > 
> > They therefore have no chance of being true. None. 
> > 
> > We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR. 
> > 
> > I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in 
> > apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that 
> > they no longer understood anything. 
> > 
> > In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me. 
> > 
> > The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what he 
> > was talking about. 
> > 
> > A humorous video was made (if you can read the French). 
> > 
> > https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler... 
> > 
> > R.H.
> 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. 

Don't say that your insane gurus are cranks, lady...

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

#619105 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

From	Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr>
Date	2023-08-28 11:08 +0000
Subject	Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?
Message-ID	<S1TyyOQlnRsfu3pIRmuLSbYr-4U@jntp>
In reply to	#619076

Le 28/08/2023 à 02:17, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> Sylvia.

Sylvia, you are delightful, and I greatly appreciate your insightful 
advice.
But I assure you that I do my best to:
1. never use abstract or ambiguous words.
2. use the same terms as the others when I think they are justified.

I was recently talking about the term "transverse Doppler effect" used by 
physicists. I find this term equivocal, because this effect is clearly 
omnidirectional. It is due not to the angle of approach, which plays no 
role in it, but to pure relative speed. It would be more accurate to speak 
of the "internal Doppler effect".

This is called the relativistic gamma factor by the way.

I only want to modify small things (by more than three or four moreover) 
at the level of the appellations.

I am sometimes criticized for using terms that were widely used by 
relativist scientists long before I was born.

Like for example the term "barycentric relativistic frame of reference" or
the term "apparent velocity of an object, particle, or rocket".

But no, these terms already exist. I only use very concrete and 
understandable concepts.

The only term that I use and which can, indeed, pose a problem is that of 
anisochrony. The reader can say "what the hell is that?"

But all the other things are already known to everyone, and the unknown 
terms can be deduced from themselves, such as the term "relativity of the 
internal chronotropy of watches by change of frame of reference".

If someone tells me "I don't understand", it's probably because he didn't 
do anything to understand.

We are talking here about a phenomenon known to all, and which is the way 
in which the
clocks internal mechanism measures time.
That is To'=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

So don't worry Sylvia, I'm the most concrete and "baby step" of men. If I 
sometimes use a new term, it's because it's absolutely necessary for the 
song.

R.H.

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

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

csiph-web

How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

Contents

#618925

#618927

#618942

#618950

#618953

#618955

#618961

#618977

#618984

#618987

#618969

#619041

#619042 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

#619043 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

#619044 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

#619046 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

#619048 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

#619076

#619093

#619105 — Re: How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?