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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614404 > unrolled thread

If relativity was easy to understand

Started bywhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
First post2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
Last post2023-07-14 12:49 -0500
Articles 20 on this page of 113 — 27 participants

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

Contents

  If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 14:48 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:10 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 20:11 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:22 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:38 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 22:10 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 23:54 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:05 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:38 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Dominique Antonopoulos <oino@pueisese.uo> - 2023-07-04 15:27 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:56 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 19:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:53 -0400
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:57 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 16:59 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:44 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:59 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:06 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:03 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:07 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:58 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-04 00:42 -0400
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:08 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:09 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:07 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy Baldomero Pefanis <emls@rilaffne.lo> - 2023-07-03 22:39 +0000
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-07 08:05 +0200
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Bubba Konstantatos <bosb@sbbtotab.ts> - 2023-07-07 11:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-08 07:23 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 10:30 -0400
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:21 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Cash Adamidis <sida@sshsicih.ac> - 2023-07-08 22:52 +0000
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 17:11 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Mikell Michalaras <ella@llrilkhe.ah> - 2023-07-09 11:28 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-09 08:17 +0200
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Michael Eatros <rore@aiaeieee.lt> - 2023-07-09 11:53 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 23:42 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:26 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:34 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:56 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 13:22 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 15:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:13 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:46 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:53 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:57 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:04 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:11 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:57 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:12 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 21:06 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 18:15 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy Johnthan Totolos <aoto@holashno.on> - 2023-07-05 17:32 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-04 20:38 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:31 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:52 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 01:25 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-05 13:27 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-05 15:49 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:14 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-05 09:33 -0400
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:35 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:34 -0700
                        Re: If relativity was easy Stefhen Antonopoulos <slsn@spoolneo.eu> - 2023-07-05 17:46 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:26 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy Delma Haritopoulos <popp@ralroomo.lo> - 2023-07-05 17:14 +0000
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:41 +0200
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-05 14:21 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:55 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:36 +0200
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 00:58 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:12 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:41 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:13 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:36 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:38 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 18:44 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 22:35 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 22:19 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:35 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-13 13:46 -0500
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-13 13:12 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:49 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:41 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:52 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 10:47 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 01:57 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 03:27 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:44 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-06 10:29 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 10:47 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-05 15:49 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 15:59 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 20:03 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 00:56 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:58 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 23:39 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 16:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 19:38 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:40 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-14 07:19 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 11:27 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:33 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 12:49 -0500

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#614404 — If relativity was easy to understand

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
SubjectIf relativity was easy to understand
Message-ID<kggtl5F9bq1U2@mid.individual.net>
If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#614405

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-03 14:48 -0700
Message-ID<8caa347e-010d-4286-83f9-f081dd17bfd9n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614404
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
List the three most hard to understand points about relativity.

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

#614417

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-03 18:10 -0700
Message-ID<a9a84e9c-e64e-4aac-8339-c5045149662dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614405
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:48:46 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity.
Okay, then list the three most important empirical facts that relativity explicates.

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

#614418

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-03 20:11 -0500
Message-ID<kgh9toFbhjjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#614405
On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity.

Naw, this is better:

"On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the
outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other
outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which
hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it,
outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When
Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it
reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the
psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which
three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were
introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
Each concluded that the others were crazy.

<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/>

Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a
friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this
newsgroup.

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

#614419

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-03 18:22 -0700
Message-ID<3d6af864-6bc2-454b-9a55-8fa56cda40c0n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614418
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> 
> >> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> 
> > List the three most hard to understand points about relativity.
> Naw, this is better: 
> 
> "On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the 
> outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other 
> outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which 
> hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it, 
> outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When 
> Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it 
> reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the 
> psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which 
> three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were 
> introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan. 
> Each concluded that the others were crazy. 
> 
> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/> 
> 
> Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a 
> friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this 
> newsgroup.

whodat you cowardly chump.

"Naw, this is better"? or "Naw, this is impossible"

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

#614421

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-03 18:38 -0700
Message-ID<6a3bce4a-bbfb-4c58-910d-cac307d112aan@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614419
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:22:11 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > 
> > >> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> > 
> > > List the three most hard to understand points about relativity. 
> > Naw, this is better: 
> > 
> > "On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the 
> > outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other 
> > outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which 
> > hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it, 
> > outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When 
> > Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it 
> > reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the 
> > psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which 
> > three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were 
> > introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan. 
> > Each concluded that the others were crazy. 
> > 
> > <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/> 
> > 
> > Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a 
> > friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this 
> > newsgroup.
> whodat you cowardly chump. 
> 
> "Naw, this is better"? or "Naw, this is impossible"
Cranks vs. Critics

The only theories I've proposed are lampooning derivations that start from the fundamental assumptions of SR that end in undeniable contradictions.  And yes, I can name three, at least.  Three that no one in this forum has ever successfully rebutted.

I am a critic and do not propose anything new.  I once passively believed relativity because I was told to by my culture.  I can't put my finger on when I began to doubt it.  But is was subsequent to my leaving Darwinism.  The one inspired the other.

A true crank actually asked us to consider his theory as a replacement for doctrinaire SR.  Most kook fights in this forum are between professing relativists who disagree about it's finer points.  Most recently, Gary Harnegel and Dono.  They have been enmeshed in a bitter kook fight for years, wherein charges and counter charges of crank fly from their flapping lips as freely as their spittle.

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

#614429

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-03 22:10 -0500
Message-ID<kghgteFckobU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#614419
On 7/3/2023 8:22 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>
>>>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
>>
>>> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity.
>> Naw, this is better:
>>
>> "On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the
>> outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other
>> outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which
>> hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it,
>> outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When
>> Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it
>> reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the
>> psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which
>> three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were
>> introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
>> Each concluded that the others were crazy.
>>
>> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/>
>>
>> Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a
>> friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this
>> newsgroup.
> 
> whodat you cowardly chump.
> 
> "Naw, this is better"? or "Naw, this is impossible"

Are you trying to tell me I *must* play your game(s)?

You became emperor how?

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

#614440

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-03 23:54 -0700
Message-ID<442c0545-4f06-4d1f-a936-e223bdb1cc85n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614429
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:10:41 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/3/2023 8:22 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> >> 
> >>> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity. 
> >> Naw, this is better: 
> >> 
> >> "On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the 
> >> outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other 
> >> outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which 
> >> hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it, 
> >> outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When 
> >> Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it 
> >> reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the 
> >> psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which 
> >> three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were 
> >> introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan. 
> >> Each concluded that the others were crazy. 
> >> 
> >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/> 
> >> 
> >> Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a 
> >> friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this 
> >> newsgroup. 
> > 
> > whodat you cowardly chump. 
> > 
> > "Naw, this is better"? or "Naw, this is impossible"
> Are you trying to tell me I *must* play your game(s)? 
> 
> You became emperor how?

I became emperor of this forum by proposing irrefutable reductio ad absurdae against relativity.  Don't believe me?  Try me out, whdt.

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

#614447

FromPaul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-04 07:05 -0700
Message-ID<578ef063-f097-4f5c-b9a8-25b6f3509618n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614440
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:10:41 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > On 7/3/2023 8:22 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > >> On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > >>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> > >> 
> > >>> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity. 
> > >> Naw, this is better: 
> > >> 
> > >> "On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the 
> > >> outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other 
> > >> outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which 
> > >> hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it, 
> > >> outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When 
> > >> Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it 
> > >> reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the 
> > >> psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which 
> > >> three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were 
> > >> introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan. 
> > >> Each concluded that the others were crazy. 
> > >> 
> > >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/> 
> > >> 
> > >> Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a 
> > >> friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this 
> > >> newsgroup. 
> > > 
> > > whodat you cowardly chump. 
> > > 
> > > "Naw, this is better"? or "Naw, this is impossible" 
> > Are you trying to tell me I *must* play your game(s)? 
> > 
> > You became emperor how?

> I became emperor of this forum by proposing irrefutable reductio ad absurdae against relativity. Don't believe me? Try me out, whdt.

But the emperor has no clothes... and never will...

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

#614450

FromMaciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-04 07:38 -0700
Message-ID<5992d806-18e4-4ba4-916d-7e535df96615n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614447
On Tuesday, 4 July 2023 at 16:05:34 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 8:10:41 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > > On 7/3/2023 8:22 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > > >> On 7/3/2023 4:48 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > >>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > > >> 
> > > >>>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> > > >> 
> > > >>> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity. 
> > > >> Naw, this is better: 
> > > >> 
> > > >> "On the other hand, Wertheim is gently, affectionately skeptical of the 
> > > >> outsider physicists, too. In the 1990s, she notes, Jim Carter and other 
> > > >> outsiders formed an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which 
> > > >> hosts events and maintains a Web site where, as Wertheim puts it, 
> > > >> outsiders "can publish their ideas without fear of censure." When 
> > > >> Wertheim attended an NPA meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, it 
> > > >> reminded her of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) by the 
> > > >> psychiatrist Milton Rokeach. The book describes an experiment in which 
> > > >> three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were 
> > > >> introduced to each other in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan. 
> > > >> Each concluded that the others were crazy. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Maybe that publication still exists and Jane/Laurence can find a 
> > > >> friendly outlet for her ideas. If so that might unburden this 
> > > >> newsgroup. 
> > > > 
> > > > whodat you cowardly chump. 
> > > > 
> > > > "Naw, this is better"? or "Naw, this is impossible" 
> > > Are you trying to tell me I *must* play your game(s)? 
> > > 
> > > You became emperor how? 
> 
> > I became emperor of this forum by proposing irrefutable reductio ad absurdae against relativity. Don't believe me? Try me out, whdt.
> But the emperor has no clothes... and never will...

And the physics of your idiot guru was inconsistent...
and always will be...

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

#614449

FromRichard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net>
Date2023-07-04 14:30 +0000
Message-ID<G6GMvEka_vlPuh-m-XKE6Os29go@jntp>
In reply to#614405
Le 03/07/2023 à 23:48, patdolan a écrit :
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> List the three most hard to understand points about relativity.

- les critiques d'Hachel sur les vitesses apparentes et les contradictions 
apportées. 
- Les critiques d'Hachel sur la vision actuelle qu'on a sur la 
référentiels accélérés et toutes les équations fausses.
- Les critiques d'Hachel sur les référentiels tournants et la 
contraction circonférentielle tombée du ciel.

 Et pas mal de choses...

 R.H.

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

#614451

FromDominique Antonopoulos <oino@pueisese.uo>
Date2023-07-04 15:27 +0000
Message-ID<u81dpm$23p9v$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#614449
Richard Hachel wrote:

> - les critiques d'Hachel sur les vitesses apparentes et les
> contradictions apportées. - Les critiques d'Hachel sur la vision
> actuelle qu'on a sur la référentiels accélérés et toutes les équations
> fausses.
> - Les critiques d'Hachel sur les référentiels tournants et la
> contraction circonférentielle tombée du ciel.
>  Et pas mal de choses...

so true indeed. If gravity waves exists, they in principle could stop 
gravity and spacetime. Or somebody doesn't undrestand how waves works in 
physics.

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

#614406

FromRichard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-03 14:51 -0700
Message-ID<ae480207-76a8-45cf-b940-5c9b4d2db431n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614404
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:42:00 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

If any kind of relativity didn't come into existence, we still would have cranks, because the human nature is to question things.

Also, you don't know shit about history of science for the last 300 years. Your mind have stuck with 20/30 figures, and that's all.

You need to read DETAILED BOOKS about the history of physics and astronomy since the XVIII century, and gain knowledge
about THOUSANDS of contributors in the scientific development, either being them right or wrong.

You are TOO SIMPLE for a consultant (RE).

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

#614409

FromRichard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-03 14:56 -0700
Message-ID<1f9d11ed-e2fe-46bf-a71c-c124f260cc97n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614406
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:42:00 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> If any kind of relativity didn't come into existence, we still would have cranks, because the human nature is to question things. 
> 
> Also, you don't know shit about history of science for the last 300 years. Your mind have stuck with 20/30 figures, and that's all. 
> 
> You need to read DETAILED BOOKS about the history of physics and astronomy since the XVIII century, and gain knowledge 
> about THOUSANDS of contributors in the scientific development, either being them right or wrong. 
> 
> You are TOO SIMPLE for a consultant (RE).

To decrease your ignorance, download this book for free. It actually covers mid 1700 to these days, with THOUSANDS of names
of astronomers and physicists, and the FIGHTS between them to impose their views.

Google: 

Roseveare - Mercury's Perihelion - From Le Verrier to Einstein (1982).pdf

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

#614416

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-03 19:41 -0500
Message-ID<kgh85bFbd02U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#614406
On 7/3/2023 4:51 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:42:00 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> 
> If any kind of relativity didn't come into existence, we still would have cranks, because the human nature is to question things.
> 
> Also, you don't know shit about history of science for the last 300 years. Your mind have stuck with 20/30 figures, and that's all.
> 
> You need to read DETAILED BOOKS about the history of physics and astronomy since the XVIII century, and gain knowledge
> about THOUSANDS of contributors in the scientific development, either being them right or wrong.
> 
> You are TOO SIMPLE for a consultant (RE).

Up is up, down is down. Black is black, white is white.

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

#614407

FromVolney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date2023-07-03 17:53 -0400
Message-ID<u7vg0g$3q98e$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#614404
On 7/3/2023 5:41 PM, whodat wrote:
> 
> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

Odd Bodkin once pointed out the reason we have so many relativity cranks 
is that relativity is (comparatively) easy to understand. We don't have 
that many QM/QED cranks other than relativity cranks which extend their 
crankiness to QM. Cranks see the math of w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) as 
understandable but it (and light always moving at c) conflicts with the 
"obvious" w=u+v so it "must" be wrong.

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

#614410

FromRichard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-03 14:57 -0700
Message-ID<548b63a8-a64a-4c53-b3f6-90f1b2cd534en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614407
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:53:24 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 7/3/2023 5:41 PM, whodat wrote: 
> > 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> Odd Bodkin once pointed out the reason we have so many relativity cranks 
> is that relativity is (comparatively) easy to understand. We don't have 
> that many QM/QED cranks other than relativity cranks which extend their 
> crankiness to QM. Cranks see the math of w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) as 
> understandable but it (and light always moving at c) conflicts with the 
> "obvious" w=u+v so it "must" be wrong.

You are an idiot who miss Bodkin, the King of Idiots.

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

#614415

FromPaul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-03 16:59 -0700
Message-ID<2e6404ca-8b39-498a-bdec-66ee05b273c7n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614410
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:57:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> You are an idiot who miss Bodkin, the King of Idiots.

Bodkin has forgotten more physics than you  will ever know...

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

#614422

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-03 18:44 -0700
Message-ID<b3aaeae3-29f2-4116-a327-8b77e0b81d44n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614415
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:59:15 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:57:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> > You are an idiot who miss Bodkin, the King of Idiots.
> Bodkin has forgotten more physics than you will ever know...

Bodkin was a fool.  But one of the wisest fool in Christendom (even though he was orthodox?). Bodkin was always ready and willing to be painted into corner.  It usually took me less than a 1/2 pint of dialectic to do it.

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

#614425

FromPaul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-03 19:59 -0700
Message-ID<cfdfa4c7-3334-4373-a3cf-85c03e392139n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614422
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:59:15 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:57:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > 
> > > You are an idiot who miss Bodkin, the King of Idiots. 

> > Bodkin has forgotten more physics than you will ever know...

> Bodkin was a fool. But one of the wisest fool in Christendom (even though he was orthodox?). Bodkin was always ready and willing to be painted into corner. It usually took me less than a 1/2 pint of dialectic to do it.

Bodkin has forgotten TWICE as much physics than you have ever known, Dolan... maybe 3x...

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

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web