Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #613792 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-03 12:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:45 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:05 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:39 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:26 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:50 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 17:55 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 23:04 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:15 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 18:51 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 17:54 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 09:06 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 12:58 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:39 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 14:21 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:20 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:27 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 09:25 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:28 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 13:52 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:06 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:19 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 16:47 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:38 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 16:46 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:17 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:22 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 10:52 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 13:51 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 12:07 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 12:15 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 17:49 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:12 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:20 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:38 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 22:51 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:55 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 04:24 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:11 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 13:22 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:34 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:56 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:59 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:00 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 14:25 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 00:33 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 21:42 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Barry Schenck <ccsc@ebrrccrh.bc> - 2023-07-02 12:30 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:40 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:00 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-01 14:39 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:53 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 13:07 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:03 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-30 22:48 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:51 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-30 20:53 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:01 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:04 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:05 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:52 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:01 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-01 12:30 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 10:29 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-03 13:31 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:47 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-05 08:31 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Stoney Karkampasis <ttas@opiariam.ka> - 2023-07-05 18:00 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:10 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:11 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:48 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 03:01 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 12:55 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 04:26 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:12 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:13 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:24 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Hassell Chrysanthopoulos <rhss@lypnahhu.yh> - 2023-07-03 09:38 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:28 -0400
Re: How do you tell who Selvin Pappayiorgas <aasi@igesepap.on> - 2023-07-03 19:50 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's Barney Papadelias <bldb@yayaasnr.ia> - 2023-07-03 19:28 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 22:26 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:02 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:27 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:47 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:34 -0400
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:23 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-02 12:28 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 09:32 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 08:15 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:39 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:51 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:23 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:21 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 13:28 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:47 -0700
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:47 -0700
Off the Rails (was Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth?) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-02 17:01 -0500
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:47 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 21:01 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 19:06 +0000
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 21:09 +0200
Re: How do you tell who's telling the truth? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:27 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd2116ec-3c33-47eb-9716-0987189c3187n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614208 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:34:38 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > On 7/1/2023 1:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > >> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > >>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > >> > > >>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > > >>>> is admission of falseness. > > >> > > >>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. > > >> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it > > >> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. > > >> > > >> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE > > >> > > >> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions > > >> about something > > >> > > >> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between > > >> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." > > >> > > >> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> > > >> > > >> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" > > >> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in > > >> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that > > >> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose > > >> to participate you accepted the charter that created this > > >> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition > > >> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's > > >> already here. > > > > > You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. > > "You know" I'm really not worried whether relativity stands or falls. > > > > I care about what appears to work. > > > > When something better comes along and is accepted by science I'll > > jump aboard. That relativity hangs on so strongly is a sign, to > > me, of its validity. I won't be upset if you manage to break its > > stranglehold, but you're not there yet. > You don't understand relativity doesn't work. Didn't you ever listen to Richard Hertz? Relativity is an irrational paradigm. Tyrants hang on without any justification. I don't need to break its stranglehold on you. I recommend you read: Relativity A Scientific Blunder. Richard Hertz is not exactly a good source to reference. He gets clobbered here routinely. You don't understand that the computer you are using cannot possibly work without taking relativity into account!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <366df65c-98ee-4467-9e31-5ff395d11700n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614211 |
On Saturday, 1 July 2023 at 20:56:07 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:34:38 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > On 7/1/2023 1:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > >> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > >>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > > > >>>> is admission of falseness. > > > >> > > > >>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. > > > >> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it > > > >> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. > > > >> > > > >> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE > > > >> > > > >> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions > > > >> about something > > > >> > > > >> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between > > > >> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." > > > >> > > > >> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> > > > >> > > > >> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" > > > >> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in > > > >> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that > > > >> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose > > > >> to participate you accepted the charter that created this > > > >> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition > > > >> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's > > > >> already here. > > > > > > > You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. > > > "You know" I'm really not worried whether relativity stands or falls. > > > > > > I care about what appears to work. > > > > > > When something better comes along and is accepted by science I'll > > > jump aboard. That relativity hangs on so strongly is a sign, to > > > me, of its validity. I won't be upset if you manage to break its > > > stranglehold, but you're not there yet. > > You don't understand relativity doesn't work. Didn't you ever listen to Richard Hertz? Relativity is an irrational paradigm. Tyrants hang on without any justification. I don't need to break its stranglehold on you. I recommend you read: Relativity A Scientific Blunder. > Richard Hertz is not exactly a good source to reference. He gets clobbered here routinely. > > You don't understand that the computer you are using cannot possibly work without taking relativity into account! And you don't understand that in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92cc8c1a-ff9e-4fee-a60e-2af5a10ff00an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614211 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:56:07 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:34:38 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > On 7/1/2023 1:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > >> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > >>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > > > >>>> is admission of falseness. > > > >> > > > >>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. > > > >> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it > > > >> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. > > > >> > > > >> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE > > > >> > > > >> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions > > > >> about something > > > >> > > > >> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between > > > >> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." > > > >> > > > >> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> > > > >> > > > >> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" > > > >> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in > > > >> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that > > > >> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose > > > >> to participate you accepted the charter that created this > > > >> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition > > > >> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's > > > >> already here. > > > > > > > You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. > > > "You know" I'm really not worried whether relativity stands or falls. > > > > > > I care about what appears to work. > > > > > > When something better comes along and is accepted by science I'll > > > jump aboard. That relativity hangs on so strongly is a sign, to > > > me, of its validity. I won't be upset if you manage to break its > > > stranglehold, but you're not there yet. > > You don't understand relativity doesn't work. Didn't you ever listen to Richard Hertz? Relativity is an irrational paradigm. Tyrants hang on without any justification. I don't need to break its stranglehold on you. I recommend you read: Relativity A Scientific Blunder. > Richard Hertz is not exactly a good source to reference. He gets clobbered here routinely. > > You don't understand that the computer you are using cannot possibly work without taking relativity into account! You are a foo to think he is clobbered. You haven't understood a thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 14:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgbct6Fe65eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614208 |
On 7/1/2023 1:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/1/2023 1:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>> >>>>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend >>>>>> is admission of falseness. >>>> >>>>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. >>>> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it >>>> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. >>>> >>>> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE >>>> >>>> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions >>>> about something >>>> >>>> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between >>>> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." >>>> >>>> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> >>>> >>>> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" >>>> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in >>>> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that >>>> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose >>>> to participate you accepted the charter that created this >>>> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition >>>> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's >>>> already here. >> >>> You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. >> "You know" I'm really not worried whether relativity stands or falls. >> >> I care about what appears to work. >> >> When something better comes along and is accepted by science I'll >> jump aboard. That relativity hangs on so strongly is a sign, to >> me, of its validity. I won't be upset if you manage to break its >> stranglehold, but you're not there yet. > You don't understand relativity doesn't work. Didn't you ever listen to Richard Hertz? Relativity is an irrational paradigm. Tyrants hang on without any justification. I don't need to break its stranglehold on you. I recommend you read: Relativity A Scientific Blunder. I am not personally bothered by pro or con relativity arguments. Nothing about this can or will affect my daily life. I'm old and down to that. You've spent your entire life invested in science so such matters are important, nay critical, to you. You know you're sailing into the wind. That takes a certain skill with tactics to be successful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 00:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7qumi$37pji$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614208 |
On 7/1/2023 2:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/1/2023 1:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>>> >>>>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend >>>>>> is admission of falseness. >>>> >>>>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. >>>> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it >>>> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. >>>> >>>> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE >>>> >>>> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions >>>> about something >>>> >>>> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between >>>> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." >>>> >>>> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> >>>> >>>> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" >>>> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in >>>> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that >>>> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose >>>> to participate you accepted the charter that created this >>>> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition >>>> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's >>>> already here. >> >>> You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. >> "You know" I'm really not worried whether relativity stands or falls. >> >> I care about what appears to work. >> >> When something better comes along and is accepted by science I'll >> jump aboard. That relativity hangs on so strongly is a sign, to >> me, of its validity. I won't be upset if you manage to break its >> stranglehold, but you're not there yet. > You don't understand relativity doesn't work. What evidence is there of that? Do you realize that once science finds something better it will switch to it? > Didn't you ever listen to Richard Hertz? Richard Hertz? He's laughably insane! He invents imaginary conflicts among scientists of the past, has an obsessive hatred for Einstein and his replies tend to dwell on some irrelevant details, perhaps to throw people off the topic. > Relativity is an irrational paradigm. It's not irrational just because you say so. I've ask many people to show its irrationality and either get no answer, a misleading answer or an answer based on a misunderstanding, usually one they cling to despite having it pointed out as wrong. > Tyrants hang on without any justification. This may have be true for banana republics but has nothing to do with science. > I don't need to break its stranglehold on you. I recommend you read: Relativity A Scientific Blunder. The scientific method is no "stranglehold". As Einstein himself said, just one experimental result will prove relativity wrong. We're still waiting for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 21:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2534c277-cb9c-4eac-8806-d5ca25e338cfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614243 |
On Sunday, 2 July 2023 at 06:33:26 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/1/2023 2:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >> On 7/1/2023 1:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >>>> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > >>>>>> is admission of falseness. > >>>> > >>>>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. > >>>> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it > >>>> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. > >>>> > >>>> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE > >>>> > >>>> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions > >>>> about something > >>>> > >>>> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between > >>>> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." > >>>> > >>>> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> > >>>> > >>>> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" > >>>> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in > >>>> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that > >>>> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose > >>>> to participate you accepted the charter that created this > >>>> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition > >>>> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's > >>>> already here. > >> > >>> You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. > >> "You know" I'm really not worried whether relativity stands or falls. > >> > >> I care about what appears to work. > >> > >> When something better comes along and is accepted by science I'll > >> jump aboard. That relativity hangs on so strongly is a sign, to > >> me, of its validity. I won't be upset if you manage to break its > >> stranglehold, but you're not there yet. > > > You don't understand relativity doesn't work. > What evidence is there of that? Do you realize that once science finds > something better it will switch to it? > > Didn't you ever listen to Richard Hertz? > Richard Hertz? He's laughably insane! He invents imaginary conflicts > among scientists of the past, has an obsessive hatred for Einstein and > his replies tend to dwell on some irrelevant details, perhaps to throw > people off the topic. > > Relativity is an irrational paradigm. > It's not irrational just because you say so. It's because it was obviously inconsistent, as proven many times here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Schenck <ccsc@ebrrccrh.bc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 12:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7rqka$17km9$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614243 |
Volney wrote: >> You don't understand relativity doesn't work. > > What evidence is there of that? Do you realize that once science finds > something better it will switch to it? Until Western European nations grow some spine and break away from U.S. domination, their economies will continue to decline. A prime example is Germany which refused to condemn *_the_U.S._bombing_of_Nordstream_*, but now *_is_in_recession_* that is leading to *_an_economic_depression_*. you guys *_are_all_a_"zelensky"_*. Changed your names and moved to america. *_Anglo_saxon_my_ass_*. It's like the nuland, the blinkena, the bidona, bil gatesena, kissingerna, clintona, greta thunbergona, etc. All of which *_are_a_"zelensky"_*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ce5b516-483e-477a-84ec-0abe970fc8d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614206 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:11:26 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > > >> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > > >> is admission of falseness. > > > > > You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. > > Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it > > clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. > > > > "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE > > > > ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions > > about something > > > > "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between > > two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." > > > > <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> > > > > Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" > > thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in > > so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that > > weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose > > to participate you accepted the charter that created this > > newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition > > for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's > > already here. > You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Howler-Einsteins-Special-Relativity/dp/B0006EEVHI A 92-page book written in 1982 with zero reviews by a guy with zero presence on the internet. It must be really riveting!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f44e6a09-9eaf-4d9a-a29e-ec19ad1249a3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614209 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:40:23 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:11:26 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > > > > > >> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > > > >> is admission of falseness. > > > > > > > You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. > > > Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it > > > clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. > > > > > > "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE > > > > > > ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions > > > about something > > > > > > "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between > > > two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." > > > > > > <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> > > > > > > Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" > > > thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in > > > so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that > > > weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose > > > to participate you accepted the charter that created this > > > newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition > > > for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's > > > already here. > > > You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Howler-Einsteins-Special-Relativity/dp/B0006EEVHI > > A 92-page book written in 1982 with zero reviews by a guy with zero presence on the internet. It must be really riveting! "The many are ignorant and the few are wise." - Socrates. If you don't respect that you are a fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 14:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgbdnnFe65eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614209 |
On 7/1/2023 1:40 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 11:11:26 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>> On 6/30/2023 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >>> >>>>> He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend >>>>> is admission of falseness. >>> >>>> You never listen so you never learn. You don't qualify for a debate, so you can't make demands. This is a discussion forum not a debate. >>> Although it appears that English is your first language you've made it >>> clear on more than one occasion that you have poor mastery of it. >>> >>> "Britannica Dictionary definition of DEBATE >>> >>> ": a discussion between people in which they express different opinions >>> about something >>> >>> "◊ A debate can be an organized event, an informal discussion between >>> two or more people, or a general discussion that involves many people." >>> >>> <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debate#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20DEBATE,discussion%20that%20involves%20many%20people.> >>> >>> Secondly, as this forum can be and is the basis for this "debate" >>> thus the only qualification is participation. You are out of order in >>> so many ways it boggles the mind. You cannot impose rules that >>> weren't extant before you chose to participate. When you chose >>> to participate you accepted the charter that created this >>> newsgroup. If you demand a different set of rules, petition >>> for and start a different newsgroup. Otherwise live with what's >>> already here. > >> You know you are a very painstaking kind of guy. You don't realize how easy it is to refute relativity. It's not a science. It is really an ideology. Elementary logic and science are sufficient. I recommend you read "A Big Howler- Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Dr. Paul S. Gulati. I'm reading it right now. > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Howler-Einsteins-Special-Relativity/dp/B0006EEVHI > > A 92-page book written in 1982 with zero reviews by a guy with zero presence on the internet. It must be really riveting! Sorry Paul, AFAIC you're not coming from a good place. It has to start somewhere. BTW, how does an average nobody become a somebody? I won't criticize because then for the sake of legitimacy I'd have to read and understand his work. As matters stand, others will do that for me and report. So far, one in favor of, anybody have reason to dispute that? I'll be happy to hear from anyone who read this work. I'll listen to any report that finds either way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b2f2ef3-7282-47a8-b8cb-3d80dce35b4fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614218 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/1/2023 1:40 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Howler-Einsteins-Special-Relativity/dp/B0006EEVHI > > > > A 92-page book written in 1982 with zero reviews by a guy with zero presence on the internet. It must be really riveting! > Sorry Paul, AFAIC you're not coming from a good place. > > It has to start somewhere. BTW, how does an average nobody become > a somebody? > > I won't criticize because then for the sake of legitimacy I'd have > to read and understand his work. As matters stand, others will do > that for me and report. So far, one in favor of, anybody have > reason to dispute that? I'll be happy to hear from anyone who read > this work. I'll listen to any report that finds either way. I said nothing about the content of that book. I have zero idea about what is written there. I can only point out that the reference I provided was the *only* one I could find anywhere in the 25 minutes that I used to search, so I'll guess that the book did not have much of an impact on the scientific community. For some reason, Crossen seems to think that we should all read it... except that it is apparently no longer available...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cd46cba-73ec-476a-abbe-4d3630bad34en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614220 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 12:53:47 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 12:39:39 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > > On 7/1/2023 1:40 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Howler-Einsteins-Special-Relativity/dp/B0006EEVHI > > > > > > A 92-page book written in 1982 with zero reviews by a guy with zero presence on the internet. It must be really riveting! > > > Sorry Paul, AFAIC you're not coming from a good place. > > > > It has to start somewhere. BTW, how does an average nobody become > > a somebody? > > > > I won't criticize because then for the sake of legitimacy I'd have > > to read and understand his work. As matters stand, others will do > > that for me and report. So far, one in favor of, anybody have > > reason to dispute that? I'll be happy to hear from anyone who read > > this work. I'll listen to any report that finds either way. > I said nothing about the content of that book. I have zero idea about what is written there. I can only point out that the reference I provided was the *only* one I could find anywhere in the 25 minutes that I used to search, so I'll guess that the book did not have much of an impact on the scientific community. For some reason, Crossen seems to think that we should all read it... except that it is apparently no longer available... Buck up Paul! You can use Interlibrary Loan in th U.S. That's how I got it. I guess you don't know rare books can be valuable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a51129e4-9dd8-4fcd-93a0-38fd6d424ed3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614179 |
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:52:08 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/30/2023 10:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > >> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > >>>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. > >>>> Please present your evidence for this claim. > >>>> > >>>> I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? > >>> Look it up yourself. Don't be lazy. > >> You could be using insane conspiracy theory websites > >> as your primary source of information, for all we know. > >> *** PROVIDE YOUR SOURCES *** > > Get off your own asses! > He (or she) who lays a claim is required to defend it. Failure to defend > is admission of falseness. Nonsense! Lame accusation. Let the dogs bark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-30 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kg9m0tF6a1uU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614173 |
On 6/30/2023 10:20 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> >>>> Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. >>> Please present your evidence for this claim. >>> >>> I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? >> Look it up yourself. Don't be lazy. > > You could be using insane conspiracy theory websites > as your primary source of information, for all we know. > *** PROVIDE YOUR SOURCES *** Naw, just typical crank evasion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgcs5dFl9ekU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614172 |
On 2023-07-01 03:12:52 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen >> wrote:>> > Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA >> does falsify the data. That is an established fact. >> Please present your evidence for this claim.>> I do believe that you >> are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? > Look it up yourself. Don't be lazy. That's not how it works. If you claim that it is "established fact" you need to cite an appropriate reference. I think what your feeble answer to Paul tells us is that you have no serious evidence. Stuff you've read on conspiracy-theory websites is not evidence. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-30 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f86b7ff-213d-4dcc-af9d-e1ea5b6060f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614162 |
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. > Please present your evidence for this claim. > > I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? AGW and Marxism (vis Gender ideology) are pseudosciences functioning as ideologies. Please refer to Tony Heller's YouTube videos on NASA's fraudulent data manipulation. They fill fictitious temperature data in areas of the globe without temperature stations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f262cacb-3602-4836-b0d1-6cd612273aa3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614180 |
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:53:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. > > Please present your evidence for this claim. > > > > I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? > AGW and Marxism (vis Gender ideology) are pseudosciences functioning as ideologies. Please refer to Tony Heller's YouTube videos on NASA's fraudulent data manipulation. They fill fictitious temperature data in areas of the globe without temperature stations. So you claim. It is Tony Heller who is doing the data manipulation, not NASA. Here is the media bias report concerning Tony Heller's realclimatescience.com site... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ "Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change." So, got any actual evidence? NO, I didn't think so...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0b63d0d-8f6d-48db-8c2e-7ad26fa0225en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614197 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:53:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. > > > Please present your evidence for this claim. > > > > > > I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? > > > AGW and Marxism (vis Gender ideology) are pseudosciences functioning as ideologies. Please refer to Tony Heller's YouTube videos on NASA's fraudulent data manipulation. They fill fictitious temperature data in areas of the globe without temperature stations. > So you claim. It is Tony Heller who is doing the data manipulation, not NASA. > > Here is the media bias report concerning Tony Heller's realclimatescience.com site... > > https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ > > "Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change." > > So, got any actual evidence? NO, I didn't think so... If you don't understand better than so-called "fact checkers" that's sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a98ea54b-eea9-4aff-a7a1-d800721fd538n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614197 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:53:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. > > > Please present your evidence for this claim. > > > > > > I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? > > > AGW and Marxism (vis Gender ideology) are pseudosciences functioning as ideologies. Please refer to Tony Heller's YouTube videos on NASA's fraudulent data manipulation. They fill fictitious temperature data in areas of the globe without temperature stations. > So you claim. It is Tony Heller who is doing the data manipulation, not NASA. > > Here is the media bias report concerning Tony Heller's realclimatescience.com site... > > https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ > > "Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change." > > So, got any actual evidence? NO, I didn't think so... The point is AGW is ideological pseudoscience. So don't you know fact-checkers are ideologues? Are you that naive?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-01 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <449cfb88-ced0-4c88-983b-e9ff32281d17n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614200 |
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:05:40 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 8:53:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:49:18 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Politics involves ideology. When it comes to climate, NASA does falsify the data. That is an established fact. > > > > Please present your evidence for this claim. > > > > > > > > I do believe that you are full of shit. Evidence rules... got any? > > > > > AGW and Marxism (vis Gender ideology) are pseudosciences functioning as ideologies. Please refer to Tony Heller's YouTube videos on NASA's fraudulent data manipulation. They fill fictitious temperature data in areas of the globe without temperature stations. > > So you claim. It is Tony Heller who is doing the data manipulation, not NASA. > > > > Here is the media bias report concerning Tony Heller's realclimatescience.com site... > > > > https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ > > > > "Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change." > > > > So, got any actual evidence? NO, I didn't think so... > The point is AGW is ideological pseudoscience. So don't you know fact-checkers are ideologues? Are you that naive? From Bing AI... "The scientific consensus is that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming and climate change1. The theory explaining today’s long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture is called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The term “pseudoscience” refers to a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve2. The scientific consensus on AGW is based on empirical evidence and rigorous scientific research. Therefore, AGW is not considered pseudoscience." I'm pretty confident that I am not the naive person here... “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” ― Abraham Lincoln
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web