Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614404 > unrolled thread
| Started by | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-03 16:41 -0500 |
| Last post | 2023-07-14 12:49 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e077e8b2-f91c-4b77-beb9-7be2cfcc8826n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614404 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 23:42:00 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. Oppositely - if it was, we probably wouldn't have fanatic idiots screaming of being FORCED to their BEST WAY.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q_PupEQN41JaQ_QKjdY3BgbwngQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614404 |
Le 03/07/2023 à 23:41, whodat a écrit : > > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. Absolutly. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e45323f-c014-4763-9569-2e9d1e05b816n@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. It's easy to understand that it is not true. Very many excellent scientists have understood that all along, including Rutherford and Soddy, but not Feynman, sadly. Elementary science and logic are enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff1ce985-34df-42e1-a0ae-caf31bc5e1bdn@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. What appeared complicated to Ptolemy was obviously a simple geometrical problem for Aristarchus. The correct solution was parsimonious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7197ebd3-5c03-4b44-ab7f-378e4467e532n@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. "'If a professor comes here with his relativities, he will be chased out of NASA's premises.'" - NASA scientist during descent of Skylab towards a possible impact with the Kremlin: "Il Grande Grido" p. 28
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5107b52f-2b43-4004-9ea7-111e1dfd853an@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. Although relativity tends to infer from the speed limit within the atom of electromagnetism to assert this as the maximum in the macrocosm, there is evidence for higher speeds within the atom. - Il Grande Grido p. 48
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <640ae10e-ffa6-4742-b14f-77f27fa913fan@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. A critic of relativity who who wrote Il Grande Grido is very accomplished: "Ruggero Santilli was born and educated in Italy where he achieved his Ph.D., the highest possible education in mathematics and physics, as well as a chair in nuclear physics at the Avogadro Institute in Turin. In 1967 Santilli was invited by the University of Miami in Florida to conduct research for NASA and he moved with his family to the U.S.A. where he subsequently became a U.S. citizen. In 1968 he joined the faculty of Boston University, under partial support from the U.S. Air Force, where he taught physics and applied mathematics from prep courses to seminar post-Ph.D. courses. In 1975-1977 he went to MIT and from 1978 to 1983 he was a member of Harvard University where he received five grants from the U. S. Department of Energy to study a generalization of quantum mechanics and chemistry needed for new clean energies and fuels. Since 1984 he is the President of the Institute for Basic Research, originally located in a Victorian inside Harvard University and moved to Florida in 1990. Santilli is the author of some 250 technical articles and 18 post Ph.D. level monographs in mathematics, physics, cosmology, superconductivity, chemistry and biology published the world over. He is the founding editor of three journals in mathematics and physics and editor of several others. Santilli is known in mathematics for the discovery of a series of new numbers, now called "Santilli iso-, geno-, hyper- and isodual-numbers" and other discoveries; he is known in physics as the originator of "hadronic mechanics", the only known consistent broadening of quantum mechanics predicting new clean energies; and he is known in chemistry as the originator of "hadronic chemistry", a broadening of quantum chemistry developed for the study of new clean fuels. Specialties: Santilli is among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times; he received two gold medals for scientific merits; and the listing as "Santilli Hall" of a class room at an Australian research center. He has been recommended by scholars around the world to the nominations for the Nobel Prize in physics as well as in chemistry. A scientific meeting was organized in June 2005 at the University of Karlstad, Sweden, to honor Santilli's 70-th birthday"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 18:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgjpbfFnce3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614470 |
On 7/4/2023 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > A critic of relativity who who wrote Il Grande Grido is very accomplished:... My newsreader would not allow me to repost your unformatted block of text because it thought that had to be binary stuff. All you have provided is in keeping with a fallacy known as an "appeal to authority." All these wonderful scientists whose names you've trotted out have failed during the past 100 years or so to overturn relativity by the same sort of tactics that caused acceptance in the first place, irrefutable original experiment. If relativity is as full of errors and holes as you keep claiming, what's the holdup? I'm tired of all bun no beef!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77e27218-a8c2-4fe8-81d5-917556482d99n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614473 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:47:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/4/2023 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > > A critic of relativity who who wrote Il Grande Grido is very accomplished:... > > My newsreader would not allow me to repost your unformatted block of > text because it thought that had to be binary stuff. > > All you have provided is in keeping with a fallacy known as an > "appeal to authority." > > All these wonderful scientists whose names you've trotted out have > failed during the past 100 years or so to overturn relativity by > the same sort of tactics that caused acceptance in the first place, > irrefutable original experiment. > > If relativity is as full of errors and holes as you keep claiming, > what's the holdup? I'm tired of all bun no beef! It's already been provided. You refuse to read it. Thousands of articles and books. I don't care about your opinion. It is always stupid and worthless. Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 18:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgjpufFnce3U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614475 |
On 7/4/2023 6:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:47:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/4/2023 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. >>> A critic of relativity who who wrote Il Grande Grido is very accomplished:... >> >> My newsreader would not allow me to repost your unformatted block of >> text because it thought that had to be binary stuff. >> >> All you have provided is in keeping with a fallacy known as an >> "appeal to authority." >> >> All these wonderful scientists whose names you've trotted out have >> failed during the past 100 years or so to overturn relativity by >> the same sort of tactics that caused acceptance in the first place, >> irrefutable original experiment. >> >> If relativity is as full of errors and holes as you keep claiming, >> what's the holdup? I'm tired of all bun no beef! > It's already been provided. You refuse to read it. Thousands of > articles and books. I don't care about your opinion. It is always > stupid and worthless. Relativity has been refuted but you won't look > through the telescope. If you don't know that is not up to me you're even more ignorant than you've been demonstrating here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d25250d-499e-41b8-aef0-92c7c8490ab1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614475 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. But they have not, so they have not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2906d76f-7cb4-42e1-b473-24f7d3dd285cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614477 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > But they have not, so they have not. It was never proved in the first place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b85c042e-e001-471a-9ec4-f6ca085cba1en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614478 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:11:05 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > > > But they have not, so they have not. > It was never proved in the first place. Of course, it has never been proven. NO theory in physics can be proven, they can only be strongly supported by evidence. Evidence rules, and without it your claims can be dismissed out-of-hand. Got any?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 21:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a6b9b1f-1491-4bbc-8242-0b674164fac9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614482 |
On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 04:21:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:11:05 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > > > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > > > > > But they have not, so they have not. > > > It was never proved in the first place. > Of course, it has never been proven. NO theory in physics can be proven, they can only be strongly supported by evidence. > > Evidence rules And what, precisely, is the evidence that we're FORCED to THE BEST WAY of your bunch of idiots?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a8890a6-fcab-488f-8100-b5afa01e43c1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614477 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > But they have not, so they have not. None of the relativists here have convinced me in the slightest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 21:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgk1i5Fomr0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614479 |
On 7/4/2023 7:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> >>> Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. >> I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. >> But they have not, so they have not. > None of the relativists here have convinced me in the slightest. You have claimed that you are a professional scientist. If you were actually a professional scientist it would be part of your job to ascertain a correct scientific paradigm based on your study of the topic. It is not anyone's legitimate function to convince you of anything. Here (above) you claim that it is the job/mission of "relativists" to convince you of a particular paradigm. That means you are not a scientist. Thanks for this clarification.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53c51c43-d361-490a-a2e0-179d3a31919cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614477 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > But they have not, so they have not. That prize is coming paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba7c3a3c-510a-428f-b951-5ce10e02b068n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614480 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 6:15:31 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > > > But they have not, so they have not. > That prize is coming paul. I'm not holding my breath, Mitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnthan Totolos <aoto@holashno.on> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-05 17:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: If relativity was easy |
| Message-ID | <u849g8$2i0k7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614480 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. >> I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing >> have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been >> awarded a Nobel Prize. But they have not, so they have not. > > That prize is coming paul. I would not be that sure. Wiki: "Macron worked as *_a_senior_civil_servant_* at the *_Inspectorate_General_of_Finances_* and later became an *_investment_banker_at_Rothschild_&_Co_*." go move to Hague and surrender. You are providing weapons, munition, missiles and "intelligence" to perform *_terrorism_* over independent countries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-04 20:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd27b18e-b3c4-4993-bf11-7a0e22e5be8bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614477 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. > > But they have not, so they have not. No one wins prizes or acclaim by destroying a theory. They get it by proposing a new theory. All theories rust away under the influence of time like anything else on earth. It is the new, the novel, the shiny and bright which draws the next crop of fools. Producers and actors get awards. Never movie critics. You are an old fool now, Mutton Chops No More. You have lived long enough to see the death of the one you dedicated your life to. Soon there will be a new one to take its place. You will fight it, of course. I haven't decided if I will fight it. I may embrace it. Or, like Nietzsche once proclaimed of God, I may decide to proclaim that now it is Science that is dead.
[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