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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #613780 > unrolled thread

Relativity is a sacred cow.

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

Contents

  Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:15 -0700
    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 13:56 -0500
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:43 -0700
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 20:07 -0500
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:10 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 22:34 -0500
    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:58 -0700
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 17:49 -0700
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 20:40 -0500
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:11 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:21 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 22:36 -0500
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 22:53 -0500
    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-27 13:02 +1000
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:09 -0700
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 20:10 -0700
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:31 -0700
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-27 22:53 -0400
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:10 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-28 13:22 +1000
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:26 -0700
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-28 13:38 +1000
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 07:04 -0700
                    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-29 15:36 +1000
                      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:25 -0700
                        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 13:42 -0500
                        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-30 22:09 +1000
                          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 05:52 -0700
                          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 09:20 -0400
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 12:02 -0500
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-28 14:11 -0400
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:27 -0700
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:39 -0700
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 21:36 +0000
                    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 14:41 -0700
                      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 22:02 +0000
                        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:05 -0700
                          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 22:48 +0000
                            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:12 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:38 -0700
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 09:32 -0400
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 06:41 -0700
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Buster Snyders <srrs@nynybnse.ss> - 2023-07-01 15:31 +0000
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 13:08 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:00 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:04 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 18:48 -0500
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-27 21:13 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-28 09:11 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:35 -0700
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Russel Schenck <cscr@nsukeckn.rl> - 2023-06-28 16:32 +0000
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-28 13:19 +1000
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 15:40 +0000
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-29 16:09 +1000
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 23:32 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-29 10:09 +0000
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 11:47 -0400
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-29 16:14 +0000
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 19:09 -0400
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:49 -0500
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 05:44 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 22:21 -0400
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:02 -0700

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

#614130

On 6/28/2023 2:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/27/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.

>> Neither has it refuted special relativity. What the cranks need is an
>> experiment which counters SR (within its domain). After well over 100
>> years that hasn't happened yet. First one to come up with it gets an all
>> expense paid trip to Stockholm.

> The illogical nature of relativity is sufficient to know it cannot be proven by experiment.

And how is relativity "illogical"? Because you don't like it? Remember, 
the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as Euclidean 
geometry.

> Logic, not experiments test illogical theories.

Meaning we'll need to do tests on logical theories like SR. Already done!

> Logic dictated to Aristarchus that the Earth orbits the Sun, so he knew that long before parallax was measured.

And logic before then dictated the sun (and planets) orbited earth, 
which is flat.

> Relativity has no proof.

There is no proof in science, only disproof.

> It only has absurd interpretations. For example, the Muon obviously lives longer outside a lab.

"Obviously" is a term which has no place in science theories. Besides, 
muons show the same lifetimes in or outside a lab. They don't care.

> Relativists are not real scientists. It is an ideology. Relativists are pseudoscientists.

"Relativists" (a crank term for physicists) follow the scientific 
method. Meanwhile, antirelativity cranks use terms like "obviously" and 
"illogical" and don't think scientific observations or experiments are 
necessary.

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

#614131

On Friday, 30 June 2023 at 15:33:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/28/2023 2:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/27/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >>> The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.
> >> Neither has it refuted special relativity. What the cranks need is an 
> >> experiment which counters SR (within its domain). After well over 100 
> >> years that hasn't happened yet. First one to come up with it gets an all 
> >> expense paid trip to Stockholm.
> > The illogical nature of relativity is sufficient to know it cannot be proven by experiment. 
> 
> And how is relativity "illogical"? Because you don't like it? 

No, stupid Mike. The proof of inconsistency was
published many times here.

Remember, 
> the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as Euclidean 
> geometry. 

So what? "Math underlying  SR shit" and "Sr shit"
are different things, stupid Mike.
And, of course, speaking of Euclidean geometry 
it's always good to remind that  your idiot guru
has announced it false, as it didn't want to fit his
madness.


> "Relativists" (a crank term for physicists) follow the scientific 
> method.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie.

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

#614195

Volney wrote:

>> The illogical nature of relativity is sufficient to know it cannot be
>> proven by experiment.
> 
> And how is relativity "illogical"? Because you don't like it? Remember,
> the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as Euclidean
> geometry.

https://%72t.com/russia/579038-ukraine-battlefield-results-nato-summit/

With Zelensky's comments, I smell thousands of Ukrainian soldiers dying 
for nothing in the coming days.

West will be left with producing weapons only, all the while their 
respective citizens are getting super poor.

The war against Russia is 
*_the_most_expensive_war_for_the_west_Natzo_ever_*.

Hope the people of Ukraine long remember who caused the death of their 
friends, relatives sons and daughters, 
*_the_one_and_only_Little_NAZI_Butcher_Zelensky_* with the people of 
Ukraine sharing fully 50% blame for not standing up to this Little 
Demented khazar gypsy goy NAZI Tyrant or better yet removing him from the 
living!

Yeah, he is going to show some results. lol Before July 11 
*_he_is_going_to_blow_the_nuclear_plant_*. Wait and see.

If NATO needs an army with experience at getting decimated, Ukraine offers 
the solution.

*_USA_stealing_Syrian_oil_* while *_guarding_poppy_fields_* for 22yrs in 
Ghanistan, think what USA is up to!

The city of Kiev is turning into the new city of London with the billions 
of dollars that goes missing there,shame on you if you don't give more to 
Kiev infidels 😂

We stopped because we could not advance. HOW TRUE. 💯🇷🇺

Nazis have nothing worthy to prove except total surrender

He will keep on saying "in next 10 days..." with no results. Lol

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

#613972

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/27/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> >>>> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> >>>> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sylvia. 
> >> 
> >>> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source. 
> >> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source, 
> >> either. 
> >> 
> >> What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is 
> >> dependent of the source. 
> >> 
> >> So far, no such experiment exists. 
> >> 
> >> Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate 
> >> relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still 
> >> hasn't been invalidated. 
> 
> > Logic is sufficient.
> Logic is never sufficient. The scientific method requires observations 
> and experiments to support a hypothesis. 
> 
> If Logic were sufficient, we'd believe the sun and planets orbit the 
> earth with epicycles, the earth is flat etc. Nor would the MMX even be 
> performed. 
> 
> Too many cranks think they can sit in their armchair and think 
> "logically" and solve every science problem. It doesn't work that way. 
> The "logical" theories need to be tested.
> > Occam's razor indicates the simplest solution.
> Occam's razor is not absolute. It states the simpler solution is more 
> likely to be correct and an overly complex one is likely wrong. Again 
> the sun and planets orbiting earth is simpler than the earth & other 
> planets orbiting the sun, but it's wrong.
> > Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary proof, so it is relativity that requires the proof, not the ballistic hypothesis.
> And relativity has the proof. These days, relativity is accepted by real 
> scientists (not cranks) to the extent things like the ballistic theory 
> is the extraordinary claim needing extraordinary proof.
> > The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.
> Neither has it refuted special relativity. What the cranks need is an 
> experiment which counters SR (within its domain). After well over 100 
> years that hasn't happened yet. First one to come up with it gets an all 
> expense paid trip to Stockholm.
Look. Aristarchus believed he knew the planets orbit the Sun. It is a simple geometrical problem. Ptolemy's epicycles are what are extremely unnecessarily complicated. So is relativity. I'll go with Newton and you can go with epicycles.

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

#613980

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/27/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> >>>> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> >>>> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sylvia. 
> >> 
> >>> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source. 
> >> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source, 
> >> either. 
> >> 
> >> What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is 
> >> dependent of the source. 
> >> 
> >> So far, no such experiment exists. 
> >> 
> >> Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate 
> >> relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still 
> >> hasn't been invalidated. 
> 
> > Logic is sufficient.
> Logic is never sufficient. The scientific method requires observations 
> and experiments to support a hypothesis. 
> 
> If Logic were sufficient, we'd believe the sun and planets orbit the 
> earth with epicycles, the earth is flat etc. Nor would the MMX even be 
> performed. 
> 
> Too many cranks think they can sit in their armchair and think 
> "logically" and solve every science problem. It doesn't work that way. 
> The "logical" theories need to be tested.
> > Occam's razor indicates the simplest solution.
> Occam's razor is not absolute. It states the simpler solution is more 
> likely to be correct and an overly complex one is likely wrong. Again 
> the sun and planets orbiting earth is simpler than the earth & other 
> planets orbiting the sun, but it's wrong.
> > Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary proof, so it is relativity that requires the proof, not the ballistic hypothesis.
> And relativity has the proof. These days, relativity is accepted by real 
> scientists (not cranks) to the extent things like the ballistic theory 
> is the extraordinary claim needing extraordinary proof.
> > The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.
> Neither has it refuted special relativity. What the cranks need is an 
> experiment which counters SR (within its domain). After well over 100 
> years that hasn't happened yet. First one to come up with it gets an all 
> expense paid trip to Stockholm.
Plato posed the problem of the planets by asking how to explain their motions when he asserted they moved in perfect circular orbits (since they were gods). This is a simple geometrical question.

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

#613989

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/27/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> >>>> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> >>>> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sylvia. 
> >> 
> >>> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source. 
> >> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source, 
> >> either. 
> >> 
> >> What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is 
> >> dependent of the source. 
> >> 
> >> So far, no such experiment exists. 
> >> 
> >> Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate 
> >> relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still 
> >> hasn't been invalidated. 
> 
> > Logic is sufficient.
> Logic is never sufficient. The scientific method requires observations 
> and experiments to support a hypothesis. 
> 
> If Logic were sufficient, we'd believe the sun and planets orbit the 
> earth with epicycles, the earth is flat etc. Nor would the MMX even be 
> performed. 
> 
> Too many cranks think they can sit in their armchair and think 
> "logically" and solve every science problem. It doesn't work that way. 
> The "logical" theories need to be tested.
> > Occam's razor indicates the simplest solution.
> Occam's razor is not absolute. It states the simpler solution is more 
> likely to be correct and an overly complex one is likely wrong. Again 
> the sun and planets orbiting earth is simpler than the earth & other 
> planets orbiting the sun, but it's wrong.
> > Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary proof, so it is relativity that requires the proof, not the ballistic hypothesis.
> And relativity has the proof. These days, relativity is accepted by real 
> scientists (not cranks) to the extent things like the ballistic theory 
> is the extraordinary claim needing extraordinary proof.
> > The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.
> Neither has it refuted special relativity. What the cranks need is an 
> experiment which counters SR (within its domain). After well over 100 
> years that hasn't happened yet. First one to come up with it gets an all 
> expense paid trip to Stockholm.
Heliocentricity is less complex than the epicycles of Ptolemy. That was already recognized in 300 BCE.

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

#613995

On 6/28/2023 1:11 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/27/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

>> Logic is sufficient.
> 
> Logic is never sufficient. The scientific method requires observations 
> and experiments to support a hypothesis.

<...>

I finally realized this is simply a recycled version of the MPD crank
we had similar discussions with quite recently. Note the similarities.

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

#613910

Volney wrote:
> 
> On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> >> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the
> >> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has
> >> lived longer than almost any human being.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> 
> > The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source.
> 
> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source,
> either.
> 
> What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is
> dependent of the source.
> 
> So far, no such experiment exists.
> 
> Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate
> relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still
> hasn't been invalidated.



There hasn't been one experiment that has validated relativity.


(please don't post a fake experiment that was perfromed a half a century
ago)

Has 'dilation' been validated yet???? Show me the experiment...




-- 
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]

#613937

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Volney wrote:
> >
> > On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > >> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the
> > >> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has
> > >> lived longer than almost any human being.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> >
> > > The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source.
> >
> > The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source,
> > either.
> >
> > What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is
> > dependent of the source.
> >
> > So far, no such experiment exists.
> >
> > Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate
> > relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still
> > hasn't been invalidated.
> 
> There hasn't been one experiment that has validated relativity.
> 
> (please don't post a fake experiment that was perfromed a half a century
> ago)
> 
> Has 'dilation' been validated yet???? Show me the experiment...



Remember...Relativity...is    just     a     theory.



https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+theory


a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:  notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion, opinion, view, belief

a philosophy
 

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+theory


a feeling.






-- 
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]

#613941

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > Volney wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> > > 
> > > >> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> > > >> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> > > >> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Sylvia. 
> > > 
> > > > The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source. 
> > > 
> > > The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source, 
> > > either. 
> > > 
> > > What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is 
> > > dependent of the source. 
> > > 
> > > So far, no such experiment exists. 
> > > 
> > > Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate 
> > > relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still 
> > > hasn't been invalidated. 
> > 
> > There hasn't been one experiment that has validated relativity. 
> > 
> > (please don't post a fake experiment that was perfromed a half a century 
> > ago) 
> > 
> > Has 'dilation' been validated yet???? Show me the experiment...
> Remember...Relativity...is just a theory. 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+theory 
> 
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 
> "Darwin's theory of evolution" 
> synonyms: notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion, opinion, view, belief 
> 
> a philosophy 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+theory 
> 
> 
> a feeling.
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

If another world reaches us they would have to use slow aging by
their fast ship in space. Slow time depends on gravity and motion.
Contact requires it.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#613940

Volney wrote:

>> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source.
> 
> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source,
> either.

it does. 1/sqrt(miu_zero x epsilon_zero) implies that dependency in 
vacuum. However, the gay actor khazar gypsy beggar zelenske, is not living 
in the fucking uKurine, long ago. Proofs:

 *_Stoltenberg_outlines_condition_for_Ukraine_joining_NATO_*
Kiev *_must_first_win_* in its conflict with Russia before it could hope 
to become part of the alliance, the NATO chief has said 
https://%72t.com/news/578859-stoltenberg-condition-ukraine-nato/

how the fuck to "win", when the khazar gypsy beggar goy, is NOT 
participating in the war?? What the fucking *_leader_emperor_* is that??

This the deal: "You win the 'war' for us, we may then promote you to our 
'premier league"! Stoltenberg outlines condition for Ukraine joining HELL.

Incredible escalation of evil NATO that can lead to a nuclear war. People 
of the world must wake up and dislodge these satanists before it's too 
late

The true colors of this Nato *_terrorist_organization_* are being laid 
bare for all the world to see.

*_BALTOPS22_* (aka nazi nato *_Baltic_Operations_year_2022_*)
These countries will exercise a *_myriad_of_capabilities_*, demonstrating
the *_inherent_flexibility_of_maritime_forces_*. Exercise scenarios
include amphibious, gunnery, *_anti-submarine_*, air defense, and
*_mine_clearance_operations_*, as well as *_explosive_ordnance_disposal_*,
*_unmanned_underwater_* and *_surface_vehicle_exercises_*, and medical
responses.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-
off-in-the-baltic-sea/

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

#613899

On 28-June-23 6:31 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27-June-23 4:15 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
>>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
>>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
>>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
>>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
>>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
>>> true. ”
>>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
>> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So
>> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What
>> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity.
>>
>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the
>> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has
>> lived longer than almost any human being.
>>
>>
>> Sylvia.
> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source. It only shows the absence of evidence for ether wind. That is a distinctly different measurement.

Where did I mention MMX?

Sylvia?

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

#613933

Le 27/06/2023 à 05:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity.
> 
> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> lived longer than almost any human being.

It is false, it is not Einstein who said that but the founder of the 
theory of relativity (the real one) Henri Poincaré.
And he said that long before Einstein's first paper.
I give here the correct transformations given for the first time by Henri 
Poincaré, and which are falsely attributed either to Lorentz or to 
Einstein.
But strangely, NEVER to Poincaré in many textbooks, including French 
textbooks (Poincaré was a French mathematician).
It is of course totally incomprehensible if you don't have the key: the 
French are very collaborative in nature, very German during the war, very 
Welsh after the war, very pro-Biden Americanophile today, etc. .
French will always give its ass to the times.
He is the very opposite of the Vietnamese or the Russian, who will fight 
to the death to defend their territories.
We are like that, we French people.
You have to dare to say it.
The hatred of what we are and in particular of Henri Poincaré is anchored 
in us.
Don't say it again, Sylvia, I'm only saying it to you.
I just wanted you to understand.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ZQPDn8-N_LwjQcMBsGaS-NZydic@jntp/Data.Media:1>


R.H. 
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ZQPDn8-N_LwjQcMBsGaS-NZydic@jntp>

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

#614010

On 29-June-23 1:40 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/06/2023 à 05:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
>> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
>> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity.
>>
>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in 
>> the speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special 
>> relativity has lived longer than almost any human being.
> 
> It is false, it is not Einstein who said that but the founder of the 
> theory of relativity (the real one) Henri Poincaré.
> And he said that long before Einstein's first paper.
> I give here the correct transformations given for the first time by 
> Henri Poincaré, and which are falsely attributed either to Lorentz or to 
> Einstein.
> But strangely, NEVER to Poincaré in many textbooks, including French 
> textbooks (Poincaré was a French mathematician).
> It is of course totally incomprehensible if you don't have the key: the 
> French are very collaborative in nature, very German during the war, 
> very Welsh after the war, very pro-Biden Americanophile today, etc. .
> French will always give its ass to the times.
> He is the very opposite of the Vietnamese or the Russian, who will fight 
> to the death to defend their territories.
> We are like that, we French people.
> You have to dare to say it.
> The hatred of what we are and in particular of Henri Poincaré is 
> anchored in us.
> Don't say it again, Sylvia, I'm only saying it to you.
> I just wanted you to understand.
> 
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ZQPDn8-N_LwjQcMBsGaS-NZydic@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> 
> 
> R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ZQPDn8-N_LwjQcMBsGaS-NZydic@jntp>

Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. Certainly, 
I don't.

I care about whether the theory is correct, not who invented it.

Sylvia.

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

#614011

On Thursday, 29 June 2023 at 08:09:48 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29-June-23 1:40 am, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> > Le 27/06/2023 à 05:02, Sylvia Else a écrit : 
> >> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
> >> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
> >> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity. 
> >> 
> >> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in 
> >> the speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special 
> >> relativity has lived longer than almost any human being. 
> > 
> > It is false, it is not Einstein who said that but the founder of the 
> > theory of relativity (the real one) Henri Poincaré. 
> > And he said that long before Einstein's first paper. 
> > I give here the correct transformations given for the first time by 
> > Henri Poincaré, and which are falsely attributed either to Lorentz or to 
> > Einstein. 
> > But strangely, NEVER to Poincaré in many textbooks, including French 
> > textbooks (Poincaré was a French mathematician). 
> > It is of course totally incomprehensible if you don't have the key: the 
> > French are very collaborative in nature, very German during the war, 
> > very Welsh after the war, very pro-Biden Americanophile today, etc. . 
> > French will always give its ass to the times. 
> > He is the very opposite of the Vietnamese or the Russian, who will fight 
> > to the death to defend their territories. 
> > We are like that, we French people. 
> > You have to dare to say it. 
> > The hatred of what we are and in particular of Henri Poincaré is 
> > anchored in us. 
> > Don't say it again, Sylvia, I'm only saying it to you. 
> > I just wanted you to understand. 
> > 
> > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ZQPDn8-N_LwjQcMBsGaS-NZydic@jntp/Data.Media:1> 
> > 
> > 
> > R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ZQPDn8-N_LwjQcMBsGaS-NZydic@jntp>
> Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
> little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. Certainly, 
> I don't. 

Certainly, You lie, lady.

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

#614016

Le 29/06/2023 à 08:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Thursday, 29 June 2023 at 08:09:48 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
>> little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. Certainly, 
>> I don't. 
> 
> Certainly, You lie, lady.

 Yes.

 And it's not beautifull. Beurk! 

 R.H.  

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

#614025

On 6/29/2023 2:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
> little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. Certainly, 
> I don't.
> 
> I care about whether the theory is correct, not who invented it.
> 
True. The science doesn't care who discovers it. If Einstein had died as 
a baby, SR, GR, the photoelectric effect, E=mc² etc. would still have 
been there, waiting to be discovered by someone else, or multiple 
someones. The biggest difference would be that "Einstein" wouldn't be 
slang for a genius.

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

#614028

Le 29/06/2023 à 17:47, Volney a écrit :
> On 6/29/2023 2:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>> Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
>> little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. Certainly, 
>> I don't.
>> 
>> I care about whether the theory is correct, not who invented it.
>> 
> True. The science doesn't care who discovers it. If Einstein had died as 
> a baby, SR, GR, the photoelectric effect, E=mc² etc. would still have 
> been there, waiting to be discovered by someone else, or multiple 
> someones. The biggest difference would be that "Einstein" wouldn't be 
> slang for a genius.

C'est pire que ça.

 E=mc² Poincaré (1898)
 Théorie de l'invariance de c (Poincaré 1901)
 Transformations de Lorentz (Poincaré 1902)
 Rapports entre l'espace et le temps, l'absence d'éther (Poincaré 1903)
 Dynamique de l'électron (Poincaré 1905)

 La RR existait déjà en totalité avant le premier essai d'Einstein en 
septembre 1905. 

 La relativité générale, c'est Marcel Grossmann et de David Hilbert. 

 Einstein fut une pure création médiatique.

 On a la même chose avec Saint Paul dans l'histoire du christianisme. 

 R.H. 

 

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

#614077

On 6/29/2023 12:14 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 29/06/2023 à 17:47, Volney a écrit :
>> On 6/29/2023 2:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
>>> little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. 
>>> Certainly, I don't.
>>>
>>> I care about whether the theory is correct, not who invented it.
>>>
>> True. The science doesn't care who discovers it. If Einstein had died 
>> as a baby, SR, GR, the photoelectric effect, E=mc² etc. would still 
>> have been there, waiting to be discovered by someone else, or multiple 
>> someones. The biggest difference would be that "Einstein" wouldn't be 
>> slang for a genius.
> 
> C'est pire que ça.
> 
> E=mc² Poincaré (1898)
> Théorie de l'invariance de c (Poincaré 1901)
> Transformations de Lorentz (Poincaré 1902)
> Rapports entre l'espace et le temps, l'absence d'éther (Poincaré 1903)
> Dynamique de l'électron (Poincaré 1905)
> 
> La RR existait déjà en totalité avant le premier essai d'Einstein en 
> septembre 1905.
> La relativité générale, c'est Marcel Grossmann et de David Hilbert.
> Einstein fut une pure création médiatique.
> 
> On a la même chose avec Saint Paul dans l'histoire du christianisme.
> R.H.
> 
No, Einstein didn't actually die as a baby! That was a "what if" type of 
comment. If he did die young like that, nobody would have ever heard of him.

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

#614085

On 6/29/2023 6:09 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/29/2023 12:14 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 29/06/2023 à 17:47, Volney a écrit :
>>> On 6/29/2023 2:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>> Id say that Most of the non-cranks posting to this group care very 
>>>> little about exactly who it was that constructed the theory. 
>>>> Certainly, I don't.
>>>>
>>>> I care about whether the theory is correct, not who invented it.
>>>>
>>> True. The science doesn't care who discovers it. If Einstein had died 
>>> as a baby, SR, GR, the photoelectric effect, E=mc² etc. would still 
>>> have been there, waiting to be discovered by someone else, or 
>>> multiple someones. The biggest difference would be that "Einstein" 
>>> wouldn't be slang for a genius.
>>
>> C'est pire que ça.
>>
>> E=mc² Poincaré (1898)
>> Théorie de l'invariance de c (Poincaré 1901)
>> Transformations de Lorentz (Poincaré 1902)
>> Rapports entre l'espace et le temps, l'absence d'éther (Poincaré 1903)
>> Dynamique de l'électron (Poincaré 1905)
>>
>> La RR existait déjà en totalité avant le premier essai d'Einstein en 
>> septembre 1905.
>> La relativité générale, c'est Marcel Grossmann et de David Hilbert.
>> Einstein fut une pure création médiatique.
>>
>> On a la même chose avec Saint Paul dans l'histoire du christianisme.
>> R.H.
>>
> No, Einstein didn't actually die as a baby! That was a "what if" type of 
> comment. If he did die young like that, nobody would have ever heard of 
> him.

I find it increasingly difficult to attempt a rational conversation
with the crankdom that is running rife hereabouts of late.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web