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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#616536

On 8/1/2023 4:17 AM, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:38:47 -0500, whodat exuded:
> 
> ......not one word that was even remotely related to Physics.
> 
> ......back again soon....

pot, kettle, black

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

#616285

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.
It's amusing when a deplatformer censor wants to play moderator.

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

#616292

On 7/29/2023 4:06 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:
>>
>>>>> 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.
> It's amusing when a deplatformer censor wants to play moderator.

You find yourself amusing? More later.

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

#616338

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/29/2023 4:06 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: 
> >> 
> >>>>> 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. 
> > It's amusing when a deplatformer censor wants to play moderator.
> You find yourself amusing? More later.
I have long enjoyed criticizing pseudosciences like Bigfoot, UFOs and relativity.

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

#616345

On 7/30/2023 1:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/29/2023 4:06 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>


>>>>> 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.

>>> It's amusing when a deplatformer censor wants to play moderator.

>> You find yourself amusing? More later.

> I have long enjoyed criticizing pseudosciences like Bigfoot, UFOs and relativity.

Ha ha ha ha ha. This misdirection works on the weak minded, but what
about the people that matter, the shakers and doers in modern society?

We see through your propagandist style argumentation. Your entire thrust
here has been to overturn relativity but you're using the playbook of
the below average troll and that has already withstood more than a
century of argumentation.

Still all bun and no beef. You are a waste of time. You are the
weakest link.

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

#616309

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.
By the way, no theory had to supersede Freud. Please see two books: The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire &
Freud The Making of an Illusion

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

#616268

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?
The point of Schlafly's book is to correct the history of relativity regarding priority. In the process, he notices Einstein's role in the priority issues having been incorrectly evaluated.

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

#616279

On 7/29/2023 12:53 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?

> The point of Schlafly's book is to correct the history of relativity 
> regarding priority. In the process, he notices Einstein's role in the 
> priority issues having been incorrectly evaluated.

Thanks for this cliff notes version. It would appear that partially
you're concerned about Einstein after all. There's a Wikipedia
article relevant to the relativity priority dispute:

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

For something that you describe as "junk science" there sure are
a lot of people laying claim to credit for various aspects of it.

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

#616283

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 12:39:50 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/29/2023 12:53 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? 
> 
> > The point of Schlafly's book is to correct the history of relativity 
> > regarding priority. In the process, he notices Einstein's role in the 
> > priority issues having been incorrectly evaluated.
> Thanks for this cliff notes version. It would appear that partially 
> you're concerned about Einstein after all. There's a Wikipedia 
> article relevant to the relativity priority dispute: 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute 
> 
> For something that you describe as "junk science" there sure are 
> a lot of people laying claim to credit for various aspects of it.
It doesn't matter who. They can have credit for the junk. What matters is how.

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

#616234

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Roger Schlafly says he did.

About opinions? He said everyone has to start somewhere.
He was the first of his kind how can he ruin physics?
Objectivity is for the future. Or nothing could advance.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#616274

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Roger Schlafly says he did.
Where is Hachel when Schlafly champions his Poincare?

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

#616275

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Roger Schlafly says he did.
"the special relativity theory that was so influential in 20th century physics was Poincare’s theory, not Einstein’s." [Schlafly, Roger. How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science (p. 164). Dark Buzz. Kindle Edition.]

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

#616293

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Roger Schlafly says he did.

In what way? How could science have unfolded any differently?
How could people be changed?
Einstn said science would fail. And he won....

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

#616324

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:23:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen
> wrote:
>> Roger Schlafly says he did.
> 
> In what way? How could science have unfolded any differently? How could
> people be changed? Einstn said science would fail. And he won....

america a man is marry anozer man.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web