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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khdr28Fuba6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615294 |
On 7/14/2023 3:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:40:23 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:25:30 PM UTC-7, 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. >> >>>> So, how many physicists have *you* persuaded that they have it all wrong and that you have it all figured out? >>>> >>>> You are delusional! >> >>> I haven't pretended to have persuaded anyone. >> And yet you have clearly persuaded yourself that you know more about relativity than did Einstein! You have found his errors that have eluded mainstream physicists for more than a century. You must be so proud! >> >> That, in turn, clearly makes you delusional! > Take two flashlights end to end, pointing in opposite directions, and turn them on. How fast are the beams going compared to each other? According to relativity 1C. According to sane individuals 2C. You are grasping at imaginary straws. Your improvisation has the correct answer according to relativity as 2c. Creating straw men does not advance your cause. Actually there is no legitimate way to advance your cause. It now appears you have a mental age of approximately 12. Try not to regress even further. There's nobody waiting for you there with open arms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a15e62d-9539-4d57-952b-acd18048a9adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615294 |
El viernes, 14 de julio de 2023 a las 16:01:26 UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > I haven't pretended to have persuaded anyone. > > And yet you have clearly persuaded yourself that you know more about relativity than did Einstein! You have found his errors that have eluded mainstream physicists for more than a century. You must be so proud! > > > > That, in turn, clearly makes you delusional! > Take two flashlights end to end, pointing in opposite directions, and turn them on. How fast are the beams going compared to each other? According to relativity 1C. According to sane individuals 2C. According to physics, the closing speed (the speed one beam is approaching the other beam, as measured by a third party) is 2c. Each beam (again according to the thrid party) is moving at speed c. The closing speed is always measured by a third party and it has no physical relevance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c0a0b48-8f2a-44d7-ab1c-860dbdf0edc9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615307 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 23:01:27 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 14 de julio de 2023 a las 16:01:26 UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > I haven't pretended to have persuaded anyone. > > > And yet you have clearly persuaded yourself that you know more about relativity than did Einstein! You have found his errors that have eluded mainstream physicists for more than a century. You must be so proud! > > > > > > That, in turn, clearly makes you delusional! > > Take two flashlights end to end, pointing in opposite directions, and turn them on. How fast are the beams going compared to each other? According to relativity 1C. According to sane individuals 2C. > According to physics Who cares about the opinion of mad worshippers of an insane crazie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 14:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khdl7pFtf4hU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615271 |
On 7/14/2023 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:25:30 PM UTC-7, 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. >> So, how many physicists have *you* persuaded that they have it all wrong and that you have it all figured out? >> >> You are delusional! > I haven't pretended to have persuaded anyone. Neither have you. Guess what, nor will you, Mo beef, no persuasion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6352c94-6b67-45bc-9528-24af895d5ba1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615261 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:25:30 PM UTC-7, 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. > So, how many physicists have *you* persuaded that they have it all wrong and that you have it all figured out? > > You are delusional! Otis was a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 00:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khc6amFm4fjU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615215 |
On 7/13/2023 11:14 PM, 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! It is very rapidly approaching the point where Jane's (presently AKA Laurence's AKA _______) postings are becoming so muddle headed that there is no rational reason to reply to her. And, BTW Volney, I am convinced this *is* the same individual who has "lost it." Too bad, really. Not only lost it but has lost the capacity to write cogent articles worthy of consideration and reply. The desperation has also become obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 19:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8skbh$56qd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615229 |
On 7/14/2023 1:55 AM, whodat wrote: > And, BTW Volney, I am convinced this *is* the same individual who has > "lost it." Too bad, really. Not only lost it but has lost the capacity > to write cogent articles worthy of consideration and reply. The > desperation has also become obvious. > I had forgotten about "Jane" and that "Laurence" is likely a "Jane" sock. It's too bad, but not unexpected, that "Jane"/"Lawrence"/whoever got whatever insanity gene Androclueless had.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Billie Koustoubos <slbu@obbsblub.bs> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8srvc$21j6l$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615328 |
Volney wrote: > I had forgotten about "Jane" and that "Laurence" is likely a "Jane" > sock. It's too bad, but not unexpected, that "Jane"/"Lawrence"/whoever > got whatever insanity gene Androclueless had. African Official 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗨.𝗦. US VP Landed On Chinese Airport, Used Chinese Roads. https://bi%74%63hute,com/video/wuTXEr42n50d An act of 𝗯𝗶𝗼-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗶𝗻_𝗕𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘆𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 - capitalist american Helicopter 𝗱𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘀_𝗺𝗼𝘀𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗱_𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲_2023 https://bi%74%63hute,com/video/QbBREJY1klDn RFK Jr. Exposes the Neocons in the White House 𝗜_𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸_𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗜𝘀_𝗮_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘅𝘆_𝗪𝗮𝗿 https://bi%74%63hute,com/video/ovkEEUZV8hE7 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿_-_𝗪𝗲'𝗿𝗲_𝗢𝘂𝘁_𝗢𝗳_𝗔𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 lol https://bi%74%63hute,com/video/Iiur1ywaoOO5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 20:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khecbkF2eukU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615328 |
On 7/14/2023 6:05 PM, Volney wrote: > On 7/14/2023 1:55 AM, whodat wrote: > >> And, BTW Volney, I am convinced this *is* the same individual who has >> "lost it." Too bad, really. Not only lost it but has lost the capacity >> to write cogent articles worthy of consideration and reply. The >> desperation has also become obvious. >> > I had forgotten about "Jane" and that "Laurence" is likely a "Jane" > sock. It's too bad, but not unexpected, that "Jane"/"Lawrence"/whoever > got whatever insanity gene Androclueless had. If you're also saying "late bloomer" I have to agree though even back then I remember some of the seeds of this insanity already festering but not yet fully erupted. Some other points of memory are also falling into place, the sort of things we usually let pass because they are outliers in situ and generally speaking people behave themselves better in face to face encounters than they do in Usenet. Of course all that and some real(tm) money will get me a cup of coffee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54b54600-2872-4426-b482-28e63dfa35a1n@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! You're right, it's not a psychologist that is needed but a psychiatrist, or a patent clerk or a janitor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb5edab5-c443-4577-a648-44649ac9b763n@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! Relativity adjusts the time and length in the speed equation to keep light speed the same. Is this physics, intelligent, sane, or honest? No, no, no, no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 09:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khd38lFqp8aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615245 |
On 7/14/2023 8:48 AM, 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! > Relativity adjusts the time and length in the speed equation to keep light speed the same. Is this physics, intelligent, sane, or honest? No, no, no, no. So, crank, you have a religious issue. You're far umber than you look.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ffe8a41-0f3f-497f-9203-82884e1cea99n@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! Ives also agrees with Otis in his article, "Revisions of Lorentz Transformations," in the book, The Einstein Myth, and the Ives Papers. P. 156= "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable,' it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khc5nqFm4fjU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615213 |
On 7/13/2023 11:01 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! > "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. There is no accepted "postulate of the constant velocity of light." That's the misunderstood crank version.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59e95ba8-d5a2-4d65-9507-bae09667f419n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615227 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 07:45:36 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > There is no accepted "postulate of the constant velocity > of light." That's the misunderstood crank version. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/introductorygeneralphysics2phys1207opticsfirst/chapter/28-1-einsteins-postulates/ Was the author a crank? Or maybe your bunch of idiots is unable to agree what the Truths of the Faith are?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f122241-8cdd-45d0-93ed-67a795fcbc1dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615202 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 03:48:36 UTC+2, 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 Sorry, poor halfbrain, your idiot guru was mumbling inconsistently and your moronic assertions won't change that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khbtr6Fl09aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615199 |
On 7/13/2023 7:59 PM, 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. Your paraphrase is incorrect resulting in no discussion. Clearly this topic is too difficult for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f96b3552-192a-4aff-a7af-3f0c67e1d279n@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. I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most irrational and pseudoscientific part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 14:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khdkubFtf4hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615287 |
On 7/14/2023 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most irrational and pseudoscientific part. Clearly you are here to preach your variations of reality. That's not acceptable conduct in a discussion group. Discussion requires as much listening as bloviating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-19 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QMydndXCP7NoniX5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #615287 |
On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. > I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most > irrational and pseudoscientific part. The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will disappear. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web