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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b530a3f-a00d-474a-8556-ad3456f1b02en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615231 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:06:54 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > 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... They wear the wizards cloak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c17fcd3-7018-4cc1-8526-c4d6e1dad9c3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615216 |
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!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a5fd400-a562-4ef1-ac17-6723313f50fcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615261 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:16:45 UTC+2, 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? A brainwashed religious maniac can't be persuaded, Al.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f90b3aea-d41b-4a38-9469-ed6437875898n@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! I haven't pretended to have persuaded anyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65316b6f-821a-46d6-b853-8f7a7d4d9ff0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615271 |
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!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e5f699f-b49e-4c4f-bce6-de1e1fd0b79cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
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! It's not that I have a high estimation of myself, but I have a low estimation of relativity. Einstein made many very elementary errors and these have been known all along by many scientists. Why don't you read the criticisms if you want to defend relativity from them? What is accepted by the consensus or the establishment is often mistaken. For example, transgender winners of beauty contests.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 14:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khdl55Ftf4hU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615276 |
On 7/14/2023 1:01 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! > It's not that I have a high estimation of myself, but I have a low estimation of relativity. Einstein made many very elementary errors and these have been known all along by many scientists. Why don't you read the criticisms if you want to defend relativity from them? What is accepted by the consensus or the establishment is often mistaken. For example, transgender winners of beauty contests. Because criticism absent demonstration has no value. Where's the beef? There is none.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1cbf71a-1770-4bdb-b318-a3ddc1b257a3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
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! Otis was the inventor of the Otis Intelligence Tests which were used by the military in the U.S. to test 1,700,000 persons and to test 50 million worldwide. He had many other accomplishments described in his entry in Who's Who in America.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59bcbe75-a548-4488-a816-33c1a42f476cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
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! Otis was particularly skilled in mathematics. He was an instructor in mathematics at Stanford University, math editor at World Book for 25 years, educational consultant for the U.S. Navy during W.W. II, etc. etc etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82f0074b-01ff-42e5-bdf4-20eeef7b011an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 19:43:50 UTC+2, 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! C'mon, Al, the mumble of your idiot guru was obviously inconsistent. And neither his followers nor his opponents noticed. You imagine you have overwhelming mental powers - you're a bunch of delusional idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <faae6f1d-c208-4596-a421-4da96fb3d66fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
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! Congrats! You flunked the Otis Intelligence Test!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3dd1d629-8280-4caf-88fc-bf78adcb820en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
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! You wouldn't even qualify for military service!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <685148e7-4c43-4f46-b16b-fa0eadb39302n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615272 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9627340-7390-4f72-a120-0f0e9ffc954en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615294 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:26 PM UTC-7, 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! Einstein didn't need relativity. He had an alternative. > > > > 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. Each wave has their own c. Atoms have their own motion just as light does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 22:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8sbu7$4c04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615295 |
smitchisanidiot@gmail.com schwrote: > Einstein didn't need relativity. He had an alternative. You are lying Smitch, and lying is a capital sin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khdr83Fuba6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615299 |
On 7/14/2023 3:41 PM, Python wrote: > smitchisanidiot@gmail.com schwrote: > >> Einstein didn't need relativity. He had an alternative. > > You are lying Smitch, and lying is a capital sin. Untrue. They are pride, avarice [greed], envy, wrath, lust, gluttony and sloth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 13:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15d29305-8423-4644-b90d-e98b8cf8aa75n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615295 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:23:13 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:26 PM UTC-7, 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! > Einstein didn't need relativity. He had an alternative. > > > > > > 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. > Each wave has their own c. Atoms have their own motion just as light does. The Doppler effect on starlight gives us the radial velocity of stars showing the light beams waves all retained the velocity of the source, by and large.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6402b5a0-02e9-4806-9756-4845d96a38d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615302 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:46:43 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:23:13 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:26 PM UTC-7, 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! > > Einstein didn't need relativity. He had an alternative. > > > > > > > > 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. > > Each wave has their own c. Atoms have their own motion just as light does. > The Doppler effect on starlight gives us the radial velocity of stars showing the light beams waves all retained the velocity of the source, by and large. BZZZZT. Wrong yet again. Buy the textbook and read it, you are woefully uneducated in these matters. Where are you getting this information? How about a link to your evidence? Like many others here, I suspect you just make it up as you go along since it sounds so reasonable to you. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a87af73e-f30c-45ae-93d4-21f067781358n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615294 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:26 PM UTC-7, 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 really need to study this stuff. In your example, NOTHING is moving at more than C. What you are describing is better known as "closing speed", as observed by a third party, who sees the wavefronts moving apart at 2C, whereas each light beam itself is moving at just C. NOTHING is moving faster than C. The closing speed would be the rate at which the distance between the two wavefronts is increasing Do some homework before exposing your complete ignorance of the subject matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#:~:text=The%20rate%20at%20which%20two,respect%20to%20the%20reference%20frame. "The rate at which two objects in motion in a single frame of reference get closer together is called the mutual or closing speed. This may approach twice the speed of light, as in the case of two particles traveling at close to the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to the reference frame."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6810bfd-7d6f-402b-bf0b-cc4d5138b461n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615301 |
OWhat you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing. The second postulate denies this and claims it is only 1C. It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in relativity. Problem is when they are denied in the second postulate.n Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:43:06 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:26 PM UTC-7, 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 really need to study this stuff. In your example, NOTHING is moving at more than C. What you are describing is better known as "closing speed", as observed by a third party, who sees the wavefronts moving apart at 2C, whereas each light beam itself is moving at just C. NOTHING is moving faster than C. The closing speed would be the rate at which the distance between the two wavefronts is increasing > > Do some homework before exposing your complete ignorance of the subject matter. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#:~:text=The%20rate%20at%20which%20two,respect%20to%20the%20reference%20frame. > > "The rate at which two objects in motion in a single frame of reference get closer together is called the mutual or closing speed. This may approach twice the speed of light, as in the case of two particles traveling at close to the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to the reference frame." What you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing. The second postulate denies this and claims it is only 1C. It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in relativity. The problem is that they are denied in the second postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web