Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615581 > unrolled thread

Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

Started by	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
First post	2023-07-18 09:39 -0700
Last post	2023-07-18 15:15 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 61 — 11 participants

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →

#615861

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-21 17:42 -0400
Message-ID	<u9eu4q$3eosk$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615825

On 7/21/2023 1:12 AM, whodat wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 9:49 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 6:39 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2023 5:05 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2023 4:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frequency is universally accepted to be a direct measure of the 
>>>>> speed of sound as in ambulance sirens, giving S + V.
>>>>
>>>> But light isn't sound, is it. Sound is a wave in a medium and 
>>>> travels at a speed relative to the medium. Light isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Coming up with the luminiferous aether which existed to transport 
>>>> light like sound waves and for light to move relative to, probably 
>>>> set physics back a decade or two.
>>>
>>> Einstein threw up his hands and said some form of ether exists but
>>> he didn't know what it is.
>>>
>> Yes but the luminiferous aether wasn't it. He accepted that empty 
>> space could host things like electric fields but the luminiferous 
>> aether was more like air to a sound wave, something which actively 
>> propagated light.
> 
> Without disputing your take on this matter I can only recognize that
> which I read, not read into. Again more questions than answers.
> 
> Einstein presumed that something transmits light. Brilliant as he
> was I don't know I'm ready to follow him on this particular trek.
> On some things he was certain, but this was not one of those. It
> would certainly be more convenient to blindly follow. But where
> he poses a question I eagerly listen and patiently wait, quite
> probably past the end of my life.
> 
My belief is that Einstein realized that an empty vacuum somehow hosted 
electric and magnetic fields, and therefore light. He thought it was not 
wrong to call that the aether. However I'm pretty certain he did not 
believe in the luminiferous aether of the late 1800s. It was essentially 
representing light as almost mechanical vibrations in it, light moved 
relative to it etc.

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

#615863

From	Seth Rusu <rsrt@uutssuuu.ss>
Date	2023-07-21 22:15 +0000
Message-ID	<u9f02a$3mfga$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to	#615861

Volney wrote:

> My belief is that Einstein realized that 𝗮𝗻_𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆_𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘂𝘂𝗺 somehow hosted
> electric and magnetic fields, and therefore light. He thought it was not
> wrong to call that the aether. However I'm pretty certain he did not
> believe in the luminiferous aether of the late 1800s. It was essentially
> representing light as almost mechanical vibrations in it, light moved
> relative to it etc.

how the fuck is that, "𝗮𝗻_𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆_𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘂𝘂𝗺". Which country are we talking
about, where vacuum can be empty?? Is it by chance, america?

What is the problem here? Just thieves stealing from other thieves nothing
new in that part of the world. It is passed on from and to generations
hundreds of years ago.

Anglo-Saxon's wants a khazar goym state in Ukraine. In Palestine, which
they FABRICATED, is too HOT and will get HOTTER and has the highest rate
of skin cancer in the world. Don't forget Germans and Polish are the
occupants of Palestine. Their khazar goy FATE was FABRICATED ENTIRELY. NO
TRUTH IN IT. All LIES.

Polish government does only what the U.S. government tells it to do.
Nothing more, nothing less!

Western Ukraine is a failed state with zero industry and no farmland. It
exists now because the USA is sending billions in aid to them. I do not
know if Moscow wants to support fifteen million out of work people in
Western Ukraine.

The same time when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia Poland did the same!

https://r%74.com/russia/580080-poland-western-ukraine-putin/

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

#615865

From	Winfred Babutski <udeb@ikieikin.bi>
Date	2023-07-21 22:44 +0000
Message-ID	<u9f1nt$3mfga$3@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to	#615861

Volney wrote:

> My belief is that Einstein realized that an empty vacuum somehow hosted
> electric and magnetic fields, and therefore light. He thought it was not
> wrong to call that the aether. However I'm pretty certain he did not
> believe in the luminiferous aether of the late 1800s. It was essentially
> representing light as almost mechanical vibrations in it, light moved
> relative to it etc.

John Kirby Thinks Biden’s 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 To Israeli President “𝗪𝗮𝘀_𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘆,_𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘆_𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿!” 
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/john-kirby-thinks-bidens-incoherent-mumbling-to-israeli-president-was-very-very-clear/

Rachel Levine Demands Parents Give Kids Hormone Blockers To Stop ‘Wrong Puberty’
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/rachel-levine-demands-parents-give-kids-hormone-blockers-to-stop-wrong-puberty/

The Guardian: It’s Antisemitic To Use the Term ‘𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲’ 
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/the-guardian-its-antisemitic-to-use-the-term-globalist-elite/

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

#615869

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-21 19:56 -0500
Message-ID	<ki0npjFphgU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615861

On 7/21/2023 4:42 PM, Volney wrote:

<...>

> My belief is that Einstein realized that an empty vacuum somehow hosted 
> electric and magnetic fields, and therefore light. He thought it was not 
> wrong to call that the aether. However I'm pretty certain he did not 
> believe in the luminiferous aether of the late 1800s. It was essentially 
> representing light as almost mechanical vibrations in it, light moved 
> relative to it etc.

Befuddling.

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

#615922

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-23 14:34 -0400
Message-ID	<u9jrqp$ajcv$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615869

On 7/21/2023 8:56 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 7/21/2023 4:42 PM, Volney wrote:
> 
> <...>
> 
>> My belief is that Einstein realized that an empty vacuum somehow 
>> hosted electric and magnetic fields, and therefore light. He thought 
>> it was not wrong to call that the aether. However I'm pretty certain 
>> he did not believe in the luminiferous aether of the late 1800s. It 
>> was essentially representing light as almost mechanical vibrations in 
>> it, light moved relative to it etc.
> 
> Befuddling.
> 

Do you believe Einstein believed in the luminiferous aether of the late 
1800s? Why do you believe Einstein said he wasn't going to use the 
aether in his SR paper? What do you believe Einstein believed about the 
aether, when he later said some form of aether existed?

Of course we can't ask him. I stated my opinion of what he believed. And 
I understand it is an opinion.

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

#615928

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-23 13:54 -0700
Message-ID	<fdd6a293-eeb3-468d-b2d4-81553e0dbe6bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615922

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 20:34:04 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/21/2023 8:56 PM, whodat wrote: 
> > On 7/21/2023 4:42 PM, Volney wrote: 
> > 
> > <...> 
> > 
> >> My belief is that Einstein realized that an empty vacuum somehow 
> >> hosted electric and magnetic fields, and therefore light. He thought 
> >> it was not wrong to call that the aether. However I'm pretty certain 
> >> he did not believe in the luminiferous aether of the late 1800s. It 
> >> was essentially representing light as almost mechanical vibrations in 
> >> it, light moved relative to it etc. 
> > 
> > Befuddling. 
> >
> Do you believe Einstein believed in the luminiferous aether of the late 


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.

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

#615830 — Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

From	Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-21 09:17 +0200
Subject	Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?
Message-ID	<khupnuFlpvnU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615774

On 2023-07-20 19:05:38 +0000, Volney said:

>> 
>> [ … ]
>> 
>> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and 
>> Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.
> 
> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist 
> and no physicist.

Ah, I hadn't made the connection, but Arthur Otis was the one who made 
a total perversion of Alfred Binet's studies of intelligence. Not just 
a crackpot where relativity was concerned, but a very harmful 
psychologist.

-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#615775

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-20 14:12 -0500
Message-ID	<khtf8rFevmaU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615769

On 7/20/2023 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>>>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them.
>>
>>>> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that
>>>> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of
>>>> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants
>>>> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of
>>>> light at the observer would imply there were different values of
>>>> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre
>>>> notion)
>>
>>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>
>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.

> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. 

> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is 
> literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement. A good 
> place to start is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary 
> Edition 4th Edition" by Thomas S. Kuhn.  Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting 
> to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion. 

> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has 
> been frequently. There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. 

> You can use that to directly detect one way speed of starlight from the frequency 
> differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed 
? is not independent of the source or observer. For example, the light 
from Sirius
> approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec. Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please 

?, see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.

Don't tell me, show me. That's the problem here,
you have not demonstrated your contention.

Where's the beef. You should be able to take existing
data and make a new demonstration of your point from
it. If you cannot then self-correcting science has spoken.

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

#615793

From	Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 16:19 -0700
Message-ID	<6493a721-d14e-41d5-9537-6c9ab03f1f29n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615769

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:40:16 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement. A good place to start is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition 4th Edition" by Thomas S. Kuhn.

https://hekint.org/2017/01/22/objections-to-kuhns-theory-of-scientific-progression/#:~:text=These%20limitations%20include%3A%20a%20failure,an%20inability%20to%20be%20applied

"In conclusion, despite having a compelling premise, the scientific progress theories of Thomas Kuhn contain limitations. These limitations include: a failure to account for historical scientific advancements that occur outside of their supposed “paradigm”; a failure to explain additional factors that affect scientific progression, such as irrational oppression of science by non-scientific powers; and an inability to be applied universally to every field, outside of Kuhn’s favored physics examples. "

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

#615770

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 11:14 -0700
Message-ID	<f38cbeae-3551-49a0-b0d5-a673d4ad5c8en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615757

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

> > There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> 
> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
You obviously missed my point that plenty of scientists noticed light speed shared the velocity of the source, including Ritz.

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

#615772

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 11:26 -0700
Message-ID	<7d6a7ac9-9985-4b33-ae2b-2d322b907982n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615757

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them. 
> 
> >> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that 
> >> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of 
> >> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants 
> >> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of 
> >> light at the observer would imply there were different values of 
> >> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre 
> >> notion) 
> 
> > There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> 
> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
It would have been easy for Medieval scientists to know that all objects fall at the same speed regardless of weight because Philoponus explained that in ancient Rome. But the Church preferred Aristotle, so they failed to accept this.

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

#615773

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 11:43 -0700
Message-ID	<801f08ae-e0bd-460d-acca-080a0041c4edn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615757

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 

> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> 
> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
It was also easy to understand that the solar system was probably heliocentric when Plato posed it as a simple question of geometry: presuming the planets must be moving in perfect circles, how are their motions most parsimoniously explained? Aristarchus said this had an obviously simple geometrical solution: heliocentricity.

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

#615777

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-20 14:16 -0500
Message-ID	<khtfgkFevmaU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615773

On 7/20/2023 1:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>
>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
> It was also easy to understand that the solar system was probably heliocentric when Plato posed it as a simple question of geometry: presuming the planets must be moving in perfect circles, how are their motions most parsimoniously explained? Aristarchus said this had an obviously simple geometrical solution: heliocentricity.

parsimoniously:

English isn't stingy when it comes to synonyms of parsimonious. Stingy,
close, penurious, and miserly are a few terms that, like parsimonious,
suggest an unwillingness to share with others. Stingy implies a marked
lack of generosity, whereas close suggests keeping a tight grip on one's
money and possessions. Penurious implies frugality that gives an
appearance of actual poverty, and miserly suggests avariciousness and a
morbid pleasure in hoarding. Parsimonious usually suggests an extreme
frugality that borders on stinginess.

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

#615794

From	Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 16:22 -0700
Message-ID	<28dc3acd-c874-43fd-8beb-c0169c348250n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615777

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:16:40 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

> parsimoniously: 
> 
> English isn't stingy when it comes to synonyms of parsimonious. Stingy, 
> close, penurious, and miserly are a few terms that, like parsimonious, 
> suggest an unwillingness to share with others. Stingy implies a marked 
> lack of generosity, whereas close suggests keeping a tight grip on one's 
> money and possessions. Penurious implies frugality that gives an 
> appearance of actual poverty, and miserly suggests avariciousness and a 
> morbid pleasure in hoarding. Parsimonious usually suggests an extreme 
> frugality that borders on stinginess.

Hey, why use a big word when a diminutive one will do?

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

#615796

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-20 18:33 -0500
Message-ID	<khtuhvFhncvU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615794

On 7/20/2023 6:22 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:16:40 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> 
>> parsimoniously:
>>
>> English isn't stingy when it comes to synonyms of parsimonious. Stingy,
>> close, penurious, and miserly are a few terms that, like parsimonious,
>> suggest an unwillingness to share with others. Stingy implies a marked
>> lack of generosity, whereas close suggests keeping a tight grip on one's
>> money and possessions. Penurious implies frugality that gives an
>> appearance of actual poverty, and miserly suggests avariciousness and a
>> morbid pleasure in hoarding. Parsimonious usually suggests an extreme
>> frugality that borders on stinginess.
> 
> Hey, why use a big word when a diminutive one will do?

That too has a name, affectation.

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

#615801

From	Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 18:13 -0700
Message-ID	<f43712c2-7d88-4034-a400-6e73f725a58an@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615796

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:33:24 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 6:22 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:16:40 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > 
> >> parsimoniously: 
> >> 
> >> English isn't stingy when it comes to synonyms of parsimonious. Stingy, 
> >> close, penurious, and miserly are a few terms that, like parsimonious, 
> >> suggest an unwillingness to share with others. Stingy implies a marked 
> >> lack of generosity, whereas close suggests keeping a tight grip on one's 
> >> money and possessions. Penurious implies frugality that gives an 
> >> appearance of actual poverty, and miserly suggests avariciousness and a 
> >> morbid pleasure in hoarding. Parsimonious usually suggests an extreme 
> >> frugality that borders on stinginess. 
> > 
> > Hey, why use a big word when a diminutive one will do?

> That too has a name, affectation.

I have heard it said before... "I approve this message"... <Big Grin>

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

#615721

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-19 20:33 -0700
Message-ID	<6c985b05-29a0-440a-b14f-efca27e20b8en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615701

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 22:30:36 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:33:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/19/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> 
> >>> You know, it is funny they emulate Einstein's reverence for Maxwell's equations, as if they required a denial of light sharing the velocity of the source or worse, out and out denial of any relative velocity for light. 
> >> Maxwell's Equations are part of what motivated Einstein to investigate 
> >> what turned out to be SR. 
> >> 
> >> Maxwell's Equations also come up with a finite speed of light. It's just 
> >> a speed, not a speed relative to anything including the observer, the 
> >> emitter or any aether. Just a speed. 
> 
> > Every child already knew before Einstein that light had a finite velocity. It was Einstein who claimed light had no additive velocity.
> This is a very common mistake of cranks. Scientists before Einstein 
> observed that light had a constant speed independent of the source

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie.
BTW,  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.

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

#615702

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-19 15:41 -0500
Message-ID	<khr03cF38o6U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615699

On 7/19/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:33:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 01:53:38 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> What you don't understand is that almost everyone here is laughing at *you*. AI is showing you to be wrong at every turn.
>>>>>>> You are like the guy who is hitting his head against the wall because it feels so good to stop.
>>>>>>> You don't know what you don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a pathetic retired relativist loser, who lived a meaningless professional life. Now, what is left for you is to defend your religion,
>>>>>> and try to downplay any person that's against your credence.ht with matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, none of that is true, you are simply projecting again. You don't know the first thing about my professional life... but it was very fulfilling and has provided a comfortable retirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, you don't know what you don't know, just like every other crank around here who thinks he has taken Einstein down a peg or two... and it is not *my* credence, it is mainstream science's theories that you hate...
>>>> Just mainstream physics. Your narcisstic bunch often
>>>> make the equality between your precious physics and
>>>> science... you're just a narcisstic bunch.
>>>>> and that is because you don't actually understand them,
>>>> Come on, Al, nothing is hidden behind your wise faces.
>>>> You're imagining you're a kind of Guardian of the Great
>>>> Mystical Mystery... you're just an insane religious
>>>> maniac.
>>> You know, it is funny they emulate Einstein's reverence for Maxwell's equations, as if they required a denial of light sharing the velocity of the source or worse, out and out denial of any relative velocity for light.
>> Maxwell's Equations are part of what motivated Einstein to investigate
>> what turned out to be SR.
>>
>> Maxwell's Equations also come up with a finite speed of light. It's just
>> a speed, not a speed relative to anything including the observer, the
>> emitter or any aether. Just a speed.
> Every child already knew before Einstein that light had a finite velocity. It was Einstein who claimed light had no additive velocity. There was absolutely no good reason to do this, since he had no ether. The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them.

Wrong again. Here's what Einstein said:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether."

<https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/>

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

#615761

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 09:23 -0700
Message-ID	<0ffb8618-86b7-4a23-b8f7-a276c124f0cen@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615699

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:00:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:33:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > On 7/19/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:02:16 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > >> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 01:53:38 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > >>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> <snip> 
> > >>>>> What you don't understand is that almost everyone here is laughing at *you*. AI is showing you to be wrong at every turn. 
> > >>>>> You are like the guy who is hitting his head against the wall because it feels so good to stop. 
> > >>>>> You don't know what you don't know. 
> > >>> 
> > >>>> You are a pathetic retired relativist loser, who lived a meaningless professional life. Now, what is left for you is to defend your religion, 
> > >>>> and try to downplay any person that's against your credence.ht with matter. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> Nah, none of that is true, you are simply projecting again. You don't know the first thing about my professional life... but it was very fulfilling and has provided a comfortable retirement. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> Still, you don't know what you don't know, just like every other crank around here who thinks he has taken Einstein down a peg or two... and it is not *my* credence, it is mainstream science's theories that you hate... 
> > >> Just mainstream physics. Your narcisstic bunch often 
> > >> make the equality between your precious physics and 
> > >> science... you're just a narcisstic bunch. 
> > >>> and that is because you don't actually understand them, 
> > >> Come on, Al, nothing is hidden behind your wise faces. 
> > >> You're imagining you're a kind of Guardian of the Great 
> > >> Mystical Mystery... you're just an insane religious 
> > >> maniac. 
> > > You know, it is funny they emulate Einstein's reverence for Maxwell's equations, as if they required a denial of light sharing the velocity of the source or worse, out and out denial of any relative velocity for light. 
> > Maxwell's Equations are part of what motivated Einstein to investigate 
> > what turned out to be SR. 
> > 
> > Maxwell's Equations also come up with a finite speed of light. It's just 
> > a speed, not a speed relative to anything including the observer, the 
> > emitter or any aether. Just a speed.
> Every child already knew before Einstein that light had a finite velocity. It was Einstein who claimed light had no additive velocity. There was absolutely no good reason to do this, since he had no ether.

Not even wrong.

> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. 

No, that wasn't the reason.

> I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them.

You don't understand the subject at all. This is not how relativity works or
how it was motivated. You've just invented a bunch of nonsense and then
simply started yelling at those fantasies. Good luck with that.

--
Jan

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

#615584

From	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-18 09:54 -0700
Message-ID	<0718446c-0f5b-440a-aabf-1a7060bb2496n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615581

Question to Google Bard AI: why relativity is considered a pseudoscience?

ANSWER:

The theory of relativity is not a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices that are claimed to be scientific but do not adhere to the scientific method. The theory of relativity has been repeatedly tested and verified by experiment, and it is widely accepted by the scientific community.

There are a few reasons why some people might call the theory of relativity a pseudoscience. One reason is that it is not intuitive. The concepts of relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, are difficult to understand for many people. This can lead to people dismissing the theory as being "too weird" or "not possible."

Another reason why some people might call the theory of relativity a pseudoscience is that it has been criticized by some scientists. 

However, it is important to note that these criticisms have not been able to overturn the theory. In fact, many of the criticisms of relativity have been shown to be based on misunderstandings of the theory.

***********

BUAAHAHAHAHA!

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →

csiph-web

Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

Contents

#615861

#615863

#615865

#615869

#615922

#615928

#615830 — Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

#615775

#615793

#615770

#615772

#615773

#615777

#615794

#615796

#615801

#615721

#615702

#615761

#615584