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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615199 > unrolled thread

How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.

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

Contents

  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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#615428

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > On 7/14/23 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking. 
> > > I think you do not understand ANYTHING about physicists. 
> > One of the standard features of crankhood is the assumption that 
> > everything in life works like in a Hollywood thriller. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> Relativity is just science fiction. Actually it's fantasy. No, it's a fairy tale: 

No, it's neither of those. You are just spinning ego-boosting idiotic fantasies.
In the real world, relativity is a physics theory. And you cannot even state
correctly its postulates.

> "History of the concept: Statue of Rip Van Winkle in Irvington, New York: 
> Some ancient myths depict a character skipping forward in time.

Oh get a life. Idiot.

--
Jan

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

#615437

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Relativity is just science fiction.

And yet, you have zero evidence in support of your claim. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

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

#615444

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 06:31:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Relativity is just science fiction.
> And yet, you have zero evidence in support of your claim. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Sorry, Al, your idiocies are only matching your gedanken
scenarios. That's absolutely "science fiction".

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

#615429

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.
In conclusion, everyone can know that light velocity includes the observer's velocity, giving a one-way measure of the additive velocity of light using the Doppler effect on starlight and from stellar aberration.

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

#615433

On 7/15/2023 7:54 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.

> In conclusion, everyone can know that light velocity includes the observer's velocity, giving a one-way measure of the additive velocity of light using the Doppler effect on starlight and from stellar aberration.

Select your favorite insult from Uncle Al's collection
and apply it to yourself. You keep braying nonsense.

The sad part is that apparently you believe it.

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

#615450

On 7/15/2023 11:07 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 7/15/2023 7:54 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.
> 
>> In conclusion, everyone can know that light velocity includes the 
>> observer's velocity, giving a one-way measure of the additive velocity 
>> of light using the Doppler effect on starlight and from stellar 
>> aberration.
> 
> Select your favorite insult from Uncle Al's collection
> and apply it to yourself. You keep braying nonsense.
> 
Allow me:


"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Laurence Clark Crossen is. I
mean rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.
Surface of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and
sulfuric acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.
Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Crossen is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-
stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own
Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and
massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Crossen
emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise emits
stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can be this
stupid. Crossen is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment from the
original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated
by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that define
maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless
stupid as we can imagine it.  Crossen is Planck stupid, a quantum
foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand unified theory of
stupid.

Crossen is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity.  Crossen is stooopid."

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

#615451

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:47:16 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/15/2023 11:07 PM, whodat wrote: 
> > On 7/15/2023 7:54 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. 
> > 
> >> In conclusion, everyone can know that light velocity includes the 
> >> observer's velocity, giving a one-way measure of the additive velocity 
> >> of light using the Doppler effect on starlight and from stellar 
> >> aberration. 
> > 
> > Select your favorite insult from Uncle Al's collection 
> > and apply it to yourself. You keep braying nonsense. 
> >
> Allow me: 
> 
> 
> "I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Laurence Clark Crossen is. I 


And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.
But I can still believe how incredibly stupid you are.

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

#615453

On 14-July-23 10:59 am, 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.

Yes, how amazing that we've waited over a century for a person of your 
genius to spot this issue. I mean, if there were a problem this obvious 
with the theory, you'd think that someone would have spotted it before, 
but apparently not.

I'll be watching with interest when you receive your Nobel prize.

Sylvia.

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

#615455

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 09:03:33 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-July-23 10:59 am, 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.
> Yes, how amazing that we've waited over a century for a person of your 
> genius to spot this issue. I mean, if there were a problem this obvious 
> with the theory, you'd think that someone would have spotted it before, 
> but apparently not. 

Strange thing, but true - for more than 100 years nobody, neither
worshippers of the relativity nor itheir opponents, noticed how 
obviously inconsistent it is. Well, stupidity isn't infinite, Your
insane guru was wrong about it too, but can be amazingly big.

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

#615501

On 16-July-23 6:00 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 09:03:33 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-July-23 10:59 am, 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.
>> Yes, how amazing that we've waited over a century for a person of your
>> genius to spot this issue. I mean, if there were a problem this obvious
>> with the theory, you'd think that someone would have spotted it before,
>> but apparently not.
> 
> Strange thing, but true - for more than 100 years nobody, neither
> worshippers of the relativity nor itheir opponents, noticed how
> obviously inconsistent it is. Well, stupidity isn't infinite, Your
> insane guru was wrong about it too, but can be amazingly big.
> 

The odd thing is that those who claim it is obviously inconsistent seem 
completely incapable of explaining how it is obvious, other than by 
repeatedly asserting that it is.

I mean, if something is obvious, how difficult can it be to explain?

Sylvia.

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

#615511

On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 06:48:56 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-July-23 6:00 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 09:03:33 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 14-July-23 10:59 am, 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. 
> >> Yes, how amazing that we've waited over a century for a person of your 
> >> genius to spot this issue. I mean, if there were a problem this obvious 
> >> with the theory, you'd think that someone would have spotted it before, 
> >> but apparently not. 
> > 
> > Strange thing, but true - for more than 100 years nobody, neither 
> > worshippers of the relativity nor itheir opponents, noticed how 
> > obviously inconsistent it is. Well, stupidity isn't infinite, Your 
> > insane guru was wrong about it too, but can be amazingly big. 
> >
> The odd thing is that those who claim it is obviously inconsistent seem 
> completely incapable of explaining how it is obvious

An observer is moving with c/2 wrt Earth. He's going
to measure the length of a solar day. What was/were
the result/s predicted by Your insane guru and his obedient
follolwers? I mean the period of 1905-1955(when he died).
 
No answer, lady? Of course.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

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

csiph-web