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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616212 > unrolled thread

How Einstein Ruined Physics

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

Contents

  How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 11:23 -0700
    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-28 14:48 -0500
    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 16:39 -0700
      Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-28 19:14 -0500
        Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 20:58 -0700
          Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-28 21:07 -0700
            Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 21:38 -0700
              Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 22:25 -0700
            Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-28 23:40 -0500
            Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-29 00:13 -0500
              Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 10:51 -0700
                Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-29 14:08 -0500
                  Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 13:14 -0700
                    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 14:17 -0500
                      Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-07-30 22:54 +0000
                        Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-30 16:10 -0700
                          Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 18:46 -0700
                            Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-30 22:48 -0400
                        Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 20:38 -0500
                          Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-08-01 09:17 +0000
                            Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 15:18 -0500
                  Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:06 -0700
                    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-29 16:38 -0500
                      Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-30 11:12 -0700
                        Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-30 13:58 -0500
                  Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 21:47 -0700
              Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 10:53 -0700
                Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-29 14:39 -0500
                  Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 13:15 -0700
    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 20:44 -0700
    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:20 -0700
    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:21 -0700
    Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:20 -0700
      Re: How Einstein Ruined Physics Damien Tzaregradsky <rayt@iestyats.dr> - 2023-07-30 10:37 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#616212 — How Einstein Ruined Physics

Roger Schlafly says he did.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#616217

On 7/28/2023 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Roger Schlafly says he did.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

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

#616231

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Roger Schlafly says he did.
Evidently, relativists have been unable to criticize his critique since I find no replies. He seems to have been ignored for that very reason.

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

#616232

"On 7/28/2023 6:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> Roger Schlafly says he did.

> Evidently, relativists have been unable to criticize his critique since I find no replies. He seems to have been ignored for that very reason.

Roger is a mathematician, not a physicist,

"Roger SchlaflyFeb 25, 2015

"Essay Abstract

"Mathematics and physics are entirely different subjects, both in their
methodology and results. The differences are illustrated with how they
view randomness, enumeration, and truth. In physics, randomness can be
an unknown, an observational error, an unpredictable event, or a quantum
mystery. In math it is just part of probability theory. Mathematics has
subtle properties of infinities that physics does not directly observe.
Logical positivism is a philosophy that explains how mathematics and
physics search for truth in different ways, but it has been rejected by
modern philosophers, leaving them with deeply flawed views of what math
and physics are all about.

"Author Bio

"Roger Schlafly has a BSE from Princeton U, and a PhD in Mathematics
from U California Berkeley, under I. Singer. He blogs at DarkBuzz.com.

<https://forums.fqxi.org/d/2362-seeking-truth-using-different-methods-by-roger-schlafly>

And so forth, in you case, and so froth.

In my view he is uninteresting where he addresses physics And his views
on the differences between mathematics and physics is of little interest
other than to individuals like you, a mathematician unsuccessfully
attempting to become a bridge between the two disciplines. Your
continuing hostility against those physicists who advocate in favor
of relativity is ever present and, quite frankly has become as boring
as those lesser cranks we tolerate here.

Quite probably "relativists" don't give a shit about what Roger thinks
or writes. I am not speaking for them because their silence says all
that is important. The problem is you are so argumentative that you're
not getting the clue and you're attempting to create another battle
where there is no war because you're not achieving the attention you
seek.

Do something worthwhile instead. You're at another dead end here. I'll
send you some binoculars if you wish since this is an ideal time to
get started bird watching. Even you can manage that.

Do take note of the first sentence in the quote attributed to Roger.
Both physics and mathematics seek "truth" yet, according to
Roger they achieve completely different results given the same
fact set. That should give you a clue that one, or both, could
be wrong. So what the hell are you talking about anyway?

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

#616237

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 02:15:02 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> "On 7/28/2023 6:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >> Roger Schlafly says he did. 
> 
> > Evidently, relativists have been unable to criticize his critique since I find no replies. He seems to have been ignored for that very reason.
> Roger is a mathematician, not a physicist, 
> 
> "Roger SchlaflyFeb 25, 2015 
> 
> "Essay Abstract 
> 
> "Mathematics and physics are entirely different subjects, both in their 

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very 
important and successful part false, as it didn't want to 
cooperate with your madness.
No, they are not, BTW.

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

#616239

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:58:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 02:15:02 UTC+2, whodat wrote: 
> > "On 7/28/2023 6:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > >> Roger Schlafly says he did. 
> > 
> > > Evidently, relativists have been unable to criticize his critique since I find no replies. He seems to have been ignored for that very reason. 
> > Roger is a mathematician, not a physicist, 
> > 
> > "Roger SchlaflyFeb 25, 2015 
> > 
> > "Essay Abstract 
> > 
> > "Mathematics and physics are entirely different subjects, both in their
> Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind 
> that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very 
> important and successful part false, as it didn't want to 
> cooperate with your madness. 
> No, they are not, BTW.
The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.

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

#616242

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.

You are clearly a dumbfuck when it comes to Einstein...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/28/how-much-did-albert-einstein-study/?sh=55aca94e28bc

"1895–1896, attended the Argovian Cantonal School in Switzerland
1896 - 1900, attended ETH Zurich for a BA in physics
1900–1905, attended University of Zurich for a doctoral degree
By mid-1905, he was awarded his PhD in physics.

By the end of 1905, he had published four seminal papers (they would later be known as the annus mirabilis papers), which established special relativity, the existence of atoms, and the photoelectric effect.

Thus, he established his name in the field (and the history books), and by 1908 he was pretty darned famous in the physics community.

It then took until 1915 before he published his General Theory of Relativity, with much help along the way from Marcel Grossmann, and others."

Do you have any other lies about Einstein that you would like to present?

ESAD...

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

#616245

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 06:39:00 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.
> You are clearly a dumbfuck when it comes to Einstein... 

You're free to worship that mumbling idiot, Al, 
but his mumble is still proven inconsistent. Not 
that he wasn't a physicist, of course. He was  
worthy of your bunch of idiots and you're worthy 
of  him.

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

#616243

On 7/28/2023 11:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:58:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 02:15:02 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
>>> "On 7/28/2023 6:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Roger Schlafly says he did.
>>>
>>>> Evidently, relativists have been unable to criticize his critique since I find no replies. He seems to have been ignored for that very reason.
>>> Roger is a mathematician, not a physicist,
>>>
>>> "Roger SchlaflyFeb 25, 2015
>>>
>>> "Essay Abstract
>>>
>>> "Mathematics and physics are entirely different subjects, both in their
>> Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
>> that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
>> important and successful part false, as it didn't want to
>> cooperate with your madness.
>> No, they are not, BTW.
> The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.


"Einstein’s PhD thesis titled “A New Determination of Molecular
Dimensions” was completed in 1906 and is the world’s most cited work."

<https://www.online-phd-degrees.com/famous-ph-d-theses-history/#:~:text=Einstein's%20PhD%20thesis%20titled%20%E2%80%9CA,the%20world's%20most%20cited%20work.>

"Albert Einstein (/ˈaɪnstaɪn/ EYEN-styne;[4] German: [ˈalbɛʁt
ˈʔaɪnʃtaɪn] (listen); 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born
theoretical physicist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

So the first question is, is a theoretical physicist a physicist?

"It was the year 1905, and the academic world was about to witness the
birth of a genius. Albert Einstein, a young German physicist, had
completed his doctoral thesis at the University of Zurich. The thesis
was titled "On a new determination of molecular dimensions," and it
would soon become the foundation of modern physics.

"But Einstein was not content with this achievement. He had already
begun to explore other areas of physics, and he was determined to make
even greater contributions to the field. In the same year, he published
four papers that would change the course of modern physics forever."

<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/april-30-albert-einsteincompletes-his-doctoral-thesis-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B2>

Your judgment on who is a qualified as what is clearly quite impaired.

Wozniak is in my killfile for "obvious" reasons.

I'm seriously considering following your example of making unsupported
blanket statements although that generally goes against my grain. But
when in Rome...

But then I am not in an attention seeking mode. Is this the only way
you can think of to make you feel better about yourself?

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

#616244

On 7/28/2023 11:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.

So what do you *think* he was?

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

#616267

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:13:56 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 11:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> <...>
> > The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.
> So what do you *think* he was?
I don't consider anyone a physicist who can't understand the second postulate contradicts the laws of physics, specifically Newton's first law of motion and its corollary, Galileo's law of shared velocity.  Why don't you find out what the critics and skeptics think he was? Ask Roger Schlafly. I stay out of ad hominem criticisms. I don't care about credentials. Einstein doesn't really matter to me. Relativity was already formulated before him. It is relativity I take issue with. It is junk science.

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

#616277

On 7/29/2023 12:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:13:56 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/28/2023 11:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist.

>> So what do you *think* he was?

> I don't consider anyone a physicist who can't understand the second 
> postulate contradicts the laws of physics, specifically Newton's first 
> law of motion and its corollary, Galileo's law of shared velocity.  

When a statement of "fact" is made as you did (above) it is not a
statement of personal opinion as you have now revised what you wrote
earlier.

When anyone does this sort of thing their credibility suffers immensely.

However there are ways to overcome that difficulty.

> Why don't you find out what the critics and skeptics think he was? 

Because I don't care what the skeptics think. If one looks at Einstein's
statements and behavior over his lifetime they may or may not see him as
I do, as a narcissist. I don't detract from his intellect which clearly
was sharp when viewing his intellectual contributions over his lifetime.

You have been focused quite narrowly and while there is much contention
about the elements within your myopic view it is clear that over the
past century nobody has made a case strong enough to overturn the broad
based acceptance of Einstein's body of work, or even any part of that.

Should that strong a case be made I will follow the trend because I am
no physicist and don't plan to become so expert in the field that what I
say or think will have any substantial impact. Characterizing myself I
consider that I am an above average conversationalist with very broad
based interests. I readily acknowledge there are people brighter than
myself and in this particular discussion landscape there are plenty
who are inferior. As is part of the human burden I sometimes lose my
temper. As is true for anyone with ethics I attempt to improve.

> Ask Roger Schlafly. 

I don't care what Roger Schlafly thinks or says. I am, at this stage
and for the purposes of discussions in this forum only concerned what
a consensus among physicists offers. Because, like me, he is not a
physicist, he and I are on equal footing here. If we were having a
discussion pertinent to mathematics Roger would have a significant
edge on me. Based on what I know about you the same fact set is true
where you are concerned.

I stay out of ad hominem criticisms.

No you do not. there are a number of statements from your persona that
I read as unequivocal ad hominem attacks directed at me. Bear in mind
that I recognize you under your current posting identification as well
as the one you were previously using.

I don't care about credentials.

Several times you did and you claimed I am not qualified to comment
in sci.physics.relativity. I have always acknowledged that I am not
a "professional scientist" of any sort. But under the charter for
this discussion group credentials are not required for participation.

That, like so many other things, is a two sided coin.

Einstein doesn't really matter to me.

That's certainly not the impression you've made here till now. If
you want to rewind and reset the arguments I am certainly willing
to listen, but please, please, bring on the beef in future. Broad
generalizations don't cut it.

> Relativity was already formulated before him. It is relativity I 
> take issue with. It is junk science.

Please bring an "A" game to the discussion. Nothing more, or less,
has been asked of anyone wishing to participate. Those who fall back
on personal invective end up in kill files because that was the
reason for creating that feature.

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

#616282

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 12:08:15 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/29/2023 12:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:13:56 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> On 7/28/2023 11:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >>> The amusing thing is that Einstein wasn't a mathematician or a physicist. 
> 
> >> So what do you *think* he was? 
> 
> > I don't consider anyone a physicist who can't understand the second 
> > postulate contradicts the laws of physics, specifically Newton's first 
> > law of motion and its corollary, Galileo's law of shared velocity.
> When a statement of "fact" is made as you did (above) it is not a 
> statement of personal opinion as you have now revised what you wrote 
> earlier. 
> 
> When anyone does this sort of thing their credibility suffers immensely. 
> 
> However there are ways to overcome that difficulty.
> > Why don't you find out what the critics and skeptics think he was?
> Because I don't care what the skeptics think. If one looks at Einstein's 
> statements and behavior over his lifetime they may or may not see him as 
> I do, as a narcissist. I don't detract from his intellect which clearly 
> was sharp when viewing his intellectual contributions over his lifetime. 
> 
> You have been focused quite narrowly and while there is much contention 
> about the elements within your myopic view it is clear that over the 
> past century nobody has made a case strong enough to overturn the broad 
> based acceptance of Einstein's body of work, or even any part of that. 
> 
> Should that strong a case be made I will follow the trend because I am 
> no physicist and don't plan to become so expert in the field that what I 
> say or think will have any substantial impact. Characterizing myself I 
> consider that I am an above average conversationalist with very broad 
> based interests. I readily acknowledge there are people brighter than 
> myself and in this particular discussion landscape there are plenty 
> who are inferior. As is part of the human burden I sometimes lose my 
> temper. As is true for anyone with ethics I attempt to improve. 
> 
> > Ask Roger Schlafly. 
> 
> I don't care what Roger Schlafly thinks or says. I am, at this stage 
> and for the purposes of discussions in this forum only concerned what 
> a consensus among physicists offers. Because, like me, he is not a 
> physicist, he and I are on equal footing here. If we were having a 
> discussion pertinent to mathematics Roger would have a significant 
> edge on me. Based on what I know about you the same fact set is true 
> where you are concerned.
> I stay out of ad hominem criticisms.
> No you do not. there are a number of statements from your persona that 
> I read as unequivocal ad hominem attacks directed at me. Bear in mind 
> that I recognize you under your current posting identification as well 
> as the one you were previously using.
> I don't care about credentials.
> Several times you did and you claimed I am not qualified to comment 
> in sci.physics.relativity. I have always acknowledged that I am not 
> a "professional scientist" of any sort. But under the charter for 
> this discussion group credentials are not required for participation. 
> 
> That, like so many other things, is a two sided coin.
> Einstein doesn't really matter to me.
> That's certainly not the impression you've made here till now. If 
> you want to rewind and reset the arguments I am certainly willing 
> to listen, but please, please, bring on the beef in future. Broad 
> generalizations don't cut it.
> > Relativity was already formulated before him. It is relativity I 
> > take issue with. It is junk science.
> Please bring an "A" game to the discussion. Nothing more, or less, 
> has been asked of anyone wishing to participate. Those who fall back 
> on personal invective end up in kill files because that was the 
> reason for creating that feature.
When anyone relies on authority instead of thinking for themselves, their credibility becomes zero. They would be very ignorant people. I don't care what the idol worshippers believe. Who cares what the broad base accepts? Anyone who cares about the truth would care what Schlafly says. If you read in context, ad hominem criticisms of Einstein are the obvious meaning of my remark. I don't know of any previous posting identity I have used on this group. I only discovered it recently. If you think Einstein matters to me, you weren't listening.  Idol worship is offensive to me, and the defenders of relativity here are idol worshippers, or they would grapple with Schlafly's ideas. You have endlessly participated in nasty, vindictive, and belligerent tactics yourself.

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

#616348

On 7/29/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 12:08:15 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/29/2023 12:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:13:56 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2023 11:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> Einstein doesn't really matter to me.

>> That's certainly not the impression you've made here till now. If
>> you want to rewind and reset the arguments I am certainly willing
>> to listen, but please, please, bring on the beef in future. Broad
>> generalizations don't cut it.

>>> Relativity was already formulated before him. It is relativity I
>>> take issue with. It is junk science.

>> Please bring an "A" game to the discussion. Nothing more, or less,
>> has been asked of anyone wishing to participate. Those who fall back
>> on personal invective end up in kill files because that was the
>> reason for creating that feature.

> When anyone relies on authority instead of thinking for themselves, their credibility becomes zero. They would be very ignorant people. I don't care what the idol worshippers believe. Who cares what the broad base accepts? Anyone who cares about the truth would care what Schlafly says. If you read in context, ad hominem criticisms of Einstein are the obvious meaning of my remark. I don't know of any previous posting identity I have used on this group. I only discovered it recently. If you think Einstein matters to me, you weren't listening.  Idol worship is offensive to me, and the defenders of relativity here are idol worshippers, or they would grapple with Schlafly's ideas. You have endlessly participated in nasty, vindictive, and belligerent tactics yourself.

This posting of yours ranks at the top of the illogical postings I've
seen in Usenet for three decades (off and on) I've been participating.

Paraphrased, you've said, "I don't care what idol worshipers believe"
and immediately provide the reader with your proposed idol that you
want them to believe in, Roger Schlafly.

That's followed by what is clearly a baseless rant belonging to the
lowest caste of troll genre, a flame that the population of the
kibology newsgroup would decry as unworthy of trolling with a
recommendation that you take some lessons in how to achieve
the goal you missed so badly with this rant.

I don't care whether you are "Jane" or not, you've attempted to
take over the space she occupied just as this new identity
arrived on the scene replacing her. She left, you arrived and
the caliber of the argumentation diminished drastically. You have
brought nothing of value to these discussions and it is now clear
that you are incapable of rationality. The cranks loved you before
you arrived, feel honored to go play with the lowest echelon in
the sci newsgroups.

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

#616368

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 14:17:02 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 7/29/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> 
> I don't care whether you are "Jane" or not, you've attempted to take
> over the space she occupied just as this new identity arrived on the
> scene replacing her. She left, you arrived and the caliber of the
> argumentation diminished drastically. You have brought nothing of value
> to these discussions and it is now clear that you are incapable of
> rationality. The cranks loved you before you arrived, feel honored to go
> play with the lowest echelon in the sci newsgroups.

I have not left. I will return. I simply decided it was a waste of time 
trying to drum sense into a bunch of irreversibly indoctrinated religious 
idiots. I am actually working on a particular aspect that will finally 
demolish Einstein and just happened to notice this thread. 





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#616369

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:54:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 14:17:02 -0500, whodat wrote: 
> 
> > On 7/29/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > I don't care whether you are "Jane" or not, you've attempted to take 
> > over the space she occupied just as this new identity arrived on the 
> > scene replacing her. She left, you arrived and the caliber of the 
> > argumentation diminished drastically. You have brought nothing of value 
> > to these discussions and it is now clear that you are incapable of 
> > rationality. The cranks loved you before you arrived, feel honored to go 
> > play with the lowest echelon in the sci newsgroups.
> I have not left. I will return. I simply decided it was a waste of time 
> trying to drum sense into a bunch of irreversibly indoctrinated religious 
> idiots. I am actually working on a particular aspect that will finally 
> demolish Einstein and just happened to notice this thread. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- lover of truth
Schlafly believes is relativity but demolishes the fictional history of its development.

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

#616373

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:10:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:54:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: 
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 14:17:02 -0500, whodat wrote: 

> > > I don't care whether you are "Jane" or not, you've attempted to take 
> > > over the space she occupied just as this new identity arrived on the 
> > > scene replacing her. She left, you arrived and the caliber of the 
> > > argumentation diminished drastically. You have brought nothing of value 
> > > to these discussions and it is now clear that you are incapable of 
> > > rationality. The cranks loved you before you arrived, feel honored to go 
> > > play with the lowest echelon in the sci newsgroups. 

> > I have not left. I will return. I simply decided it was a waste of time 
> > trying to drum sense into a bunch of irreversibly indoctrinated religious 
> > idiots. I am actually working on a particular aspect that will finally 
> > demolish Einstein and just happened to notice this thread. 

> Schlafly believes is relativity but demolishes the fictional history of its development.

Oh, look, both Jane and Laurence used the word "demolish" in subsequent posts... I do believe that is a clue that they are one and the same!

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

#616376

On 7/30/2023 9:46 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:10:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:54:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 14:17:02 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>>>> I don't care whether you are "Jane" or not, you've attempted to take
>>>> over the space she occupied just as this new identity arrived on the
>>>> scene replacing her. She left, you arrived and the caliber of the
>>>> argumentation diminished drastically. You have brought nothing of value
>>>> to these discussions and it is now clear that you are incapable of
>>>> rationality. The cranks loved you before you arrived, feel honored to go
>>>> play with the lowest echelon in the sci newsgroups.
> 
>>> I have not left. I will return. I simply decided it was a waste of time
>>> trying to drum sense into a bunch of irreversibly indoctrinated religious
>>> idiots. I am actually working on a particular aspect that will finally
>>> demolish Einstein and just happened to notice this thread.
> 
>> Schlafly believes is relativity but demolishes the fictional history of its development.
> 
> Oh, look, both Jane and Laurence used the word "demolish" in subsequent posts... I do believe that is a clue that they are one and the same!

Yes, a pair of dirty socks retrieved from the laundry hamper with faces 
drawn on them. One face has lipstick and exaggerated eyelashes...

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

#616371

On 7/30/2023 5:54 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 14:17:02 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 7/29/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
>>
>> I don't care whether you are "Jane" or not, you've attempted to take
>> over the space she occupied just as this new identity arrived on the
>> scene replacing her. She left, you arrived and the caliber of the
>> argumentation diminished drastically. You have brought nothing of value
>> to these discussions and it is now clear that you are incapable of
>> rationality. The cranks loved you before you arrived, feel honored to go
>> play with the lowest echelon in the sci newsgroups.
> 
> I have not left. I will return. 

If you've not left you cannot return as you have been here all along.

The idiotic mislogic of the "Laurence" postings is a repetition of
some of the nonsense you've been writing here making the two identities
appear to be one person, not that I care, but you should really be doing
a better job of keeping up appearances while masking such claims.

> I simply decided it was a waste of time
> trying to drum sense into a bunch of irreversibly indoctrinated religious
> idiots. I am actually working on a particular aspect that will finally
> demolish Einstein and just happened to notice this thread.

The validity of what I wrote, "you've attempted to take over the
space she occupied just as this new identity arrived on the scene
replacing her" remains valid.

Neither of you has brought anything of value to the ongoing
conversations while you two appear to be a single entity while now
claiming otherwise. Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to be cranks. I
am astonished at the extent to which you go while seeking attention
without advancing your arguments enjoying only "troublemaking" as
the sole product. That, naturally enough, yields mental illness
as the only possible rationale for your efforts.

But then, internet discussion groups have a well understood and
established history with such basis. Even the popular TV series
"West Wing" made note of this characteristic, and you've certainly
helped Usenet live up to this understanding. With congratulations
being in order, congratulations. You've managed to outdo Archimedes
Plutonium and all such other predecessors to date. It is not a
status you'll be able to hold on to, others will soon be nipping
at your heels. Indeed, they're probably already waiting in the
wings. The one called "nymshifting Russian propagandist" is already
competing for your throne as is Arindam Banerjee.

What's next, fools?

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

#616486

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:38:47 -0500, whodat exuded:

......not one word that was even remotely related to Physics.

......back again soon....

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web