Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-13 17:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-16 23:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 17:59 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 18:48 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:28 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 00:34 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:31 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:01 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:14 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:25 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:37 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:50 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:53 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-14 16:09 +0200
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:06 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-14 17:56 +0200
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 15:38 +0000
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:38 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 18:14 +0000
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:23 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 01:01 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 23:06 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:51 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:16 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:42 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:40 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:43 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:01 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 14:14 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:05 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:08 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:13 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:42 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:45 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:01 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:23 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-14 22:41 +0200
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 15:58 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:46 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 14:55 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:43 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:52 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 16:07 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 17:56 -0400
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:14 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 19:00 -0400
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 14:57 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 17:53 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 22:17 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 09:58 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 10:17 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 10:33 -0700
Exit Strategy (was Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-15 12:42 -0500
Re: Exit Strategy (was Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-18 11:37 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 11:14 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:30 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-16 01:33 -0400
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:42 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:35 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-16 10:46 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-15 12:32 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 15:55 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-14 14:01 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 14:16 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:57 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 00:55 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 19:05 -0400
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Billie Koustoubos <slbu@obbsblub.bs> - 2023-07-15 01:15 +0000
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 20:50 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:46 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:48 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 09:09 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 07:50 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 00:45 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 22:55 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:36 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 22:30 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:49 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 14:11 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-19 10:40 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-19 12:40 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 10:56 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-19 11:02 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 11:14 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-19 11:22 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-19 15:27 -0400
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Alexandre Antopolsky <neop@sxxoneke.ka> - 2023-07-19 21:32 +0000
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 12:53 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-14 22:55 +0200
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:07 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:35 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 17:57 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 19:18 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:41 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 18:12 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-14 22:17 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 22:18 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 10:07 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:36 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:42 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 17:22 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 21:31 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:01 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 17:54 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-15 22:07 -0500
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-16 01:47 -0400
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:54 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-16 17:03 +1000
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 01:00 -0700
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-17 14:48 +1000
Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:44 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 17:59 -0700 |
| Subject | How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. |
| Message-ID | <6cae9309-49ed-4faf-8360-18826ece5dafn@googlegroups.com> |
1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df5636c1-6331-4556-b8ac-51bd0d42a3e7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615199 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46a47a85-9010-4fd7-aa8b-f30a02458a93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615202 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! Any howler monkey can throw shit better than that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 00:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khc53hFm4fjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615208 |
On 7/13/2023 10:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> >>> 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. >> No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! >> >> Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > Any howler monkey can throw shit better than that! Good to know you're actually an expert about something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c6ccd48-c45b-42fa-b395-0a3369c46e29n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615202 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! It doesn't matter to me what I look like to you. You haven't answered the criticism because you can't. It does not require an experiment to demonstrate it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ccf70d9-1497-4f11-b15f-07a4439d19dcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615202 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcbd3f22-8538-4f95-ba4f-c6359ddd6bf0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615213 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. Arthur S Otis... https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f870da5c-3f71-4597-a92f-4c787bb8e8f8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615215 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > > > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > > > > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > > > "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. > Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. > > Arthur S Otis... > > https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 > > ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5296aae-2a9a-4473-9237-3da2bc49236fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615216 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 06:25:30 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > > > > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > > > > > > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > > > > > "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. > > Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. > > > > Arthur S Otis... > > > > https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 > > > > ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! > How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience. They brainwash many school kids.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcd2bff7-1077-42c6-b9ca-f721937ff405n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615219 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:37:07 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 06:25:30 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > > > > > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > > > > > > > > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > > > > > > > "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. > > > Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. > > > > > > Arthur S Otis... > > > > > > https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 > > > > > > ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! > > How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience. > They brainwash many school kids. They certainly do in many ways. The relativists here persuade no one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afd966fd-828c-48fc-bd8c-ff195ef3a4a1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615246 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 15:50:06 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:37:07 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 06:25:30 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > > > > > > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > > > > > > > > > > > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > > > > > > > > > "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. > > > > Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. > > > > > > > > Arthur S Otis... > > > > > > > > https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 > > > > > > > > ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! > > > How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience. > > They brainwash many school kids. > They certainly do in many ways. The relativists here persuade no one. Persuasion on grown people is not effective, no matter if it's reasonable or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 16:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8rkuo$1jli$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615248 |
Demented Polish Drunkard, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 15:50:06 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: ... >> They certainly do in many ways. The relativists here persuade no one. > > Persuasion on grown people is not effective, no matter > if it's reasonable or not. You mean on senile stubborn crackpots like you Maciej?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8336abdd-6a62-426a-9c39-cd7c9e48eb97n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615250 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 16:09:32 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Demented Polish Drunkard, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 15:50:06 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > ... > >> They certainly do in many ways. The relativists here persuade no one. > > > > Persuasion on grown people is not effective, no matter > > if it's reasonable or not. > You mean on senile stubborn crackpots like you Maciej? Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying again to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8rr6m$2d1r$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615253 |
Le 14/07/2023 à 17:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 16:09:32 UTC+2, Python wrote: >> Demented Polish Drunkard, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 15:50:06 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> ... >>>> They certainly do in many ways. The relativists here persuade no one. >>> >>> Persuasion on grown people is not effective, no matter >>> if it's reasonable or not. >> You mean on senile stubborn crackpots like you Maciej? > > > Oh Right, this is what you meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 15:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZoUiok4yFqsfVCxYXviz4CYrwrQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615250 |
Le 14/07/2023 à 16:09, Python a écrit : > I am a senile stubborn Oui, je l'avais compris ça. Tu ne dis pas que des conneries, Jean-Pierre. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba078f1f-1230-4a10-b499-1ef094ad9936n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615256 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:38:47 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 14/07/2023 à 16:09, Python a écrit : > > > I am a senile stubborn > > Oui, je l'avais compris ça. > > Tu ne dis pas que des conneries, Jean-Pierre. > > R.H. Translation: "Yes, I understood that. You're not just talking, Jean-Pierre."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2MOR06L-SzUC5BK1zCT-4QEPCtI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615270 |
Le 14/07/2023 à 19:38, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:38:47 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 14/07/2023 à 16:09, Python a écrit : >> >> > I am a senile stubborn >> >> Oui, je l'avais compris ça. >> >> Tu ne dis pas que des conneries, Jean-Pierre. >> >> R.H. > Translation: "Yes, I understood that. You're not just talking, Jean-Pierre." Jean-Pierre est complétement fou. Il parait qu'il aurait accusé un physicien de fr.sci.physique (Jacques Lavau) de fabriquer des stocks de poupettes. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa51ae18-57a2-4d02-850f-37f7a245a962n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615280 |
OJean-Pierre est complétement fou. Il parait qu'il aurait accusé un physicien de fr.sci.physique (Jacques Lavau) de fabriquer des stocks de poupettes. n Friday, July 14, 2023 at 11:14:25 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 14/07/2023 à 19:38, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:38:47 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> Le 14/07/2023 à 16:09, Python a écrit : > >> > >> > I am a senile stubborn > >> > >> Oui, je l'avais compris ça. > >> > >> Tu ne dis pas que des conneries, Jean-Pierre. > >> > >> R.H. > > Translation: "Yes, I understood that. You're not just talking, Jean-Pierre." > Jean-Pierre est complétement fou. > > Il parait qu'il aurait accusé un physicien de fr.sci.physique (Jacques > Lavau) de fabriquer des stocks de poupettes. > > R.H. "Jean-Pierre is completely insane. It seems that he accused a physicist of fr.sci.physique (Jacques Lavau) of making stocks of dolls."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 01:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khc6lrFm4fjU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615216 |
On 7/13/2023 11:25 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. >>>> No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! >>>> >>>> Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! >> >>> "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. >> Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. >> >> Arthur S Otis... >> >> https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 >> >> ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! > How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience. The inept can never be persuaded. As I wrote before, relativity isn't easy to understand. Lesser mortals of your ilk will never actually get it. By the same token, once someone actually understands and appreciates relativity you are unable to convince them that your crank theories actually rule. As Uncle Al was so fond of saying, you are stoopid!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 23:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9b2ebbe-5a4f-4083-a008-fb700be25f07n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615230 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 08:01:36 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > On 7/13/2023 11:25 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. > >>>> No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! > >>>> > >>>> Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! > >> > >>> "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. > >> Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. > >> > >> Arthur S Otis... > >> > >> https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 > >> > >> ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! > > How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience. > The inept can never be persuaded. You are a perfect example. > easy to understand. Lesser mortals of your ilk will never actually get > it. How nice! That makes you a Guardian of the Great Mystery...
[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