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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617572 > unrolled thread

charlatan syndrome

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

Contents

  charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 11:26 -0700
    Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 11:42 -0700
      Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 12:04 -0700
        Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 12:59 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:53 -0700
        Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 02:14 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 05:55 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:00 -0700
              Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:57 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:56 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:11 -0700
              Re: charlatan syndrome Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 02:02 -0400
            Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:17 -0700
              Re: charlatan syndrome whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 15:27 -0500
              Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:54 -0700
                Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 17:52 -0700
                Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 20:56 -0700
      Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-14 10:35 +0000
    Re: charlatan syndrome Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 21:03 +0200
      Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 12:07 -0700
        Re: charlatan syndrome Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:25 +0200
          Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 01:15 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:55 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:01 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 15:16 -0500
          Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:57 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:03 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 19:05 +0200
              Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:16 -0700
                Re: charlatan syndrome whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 15:26 -0500
            Re: charlatan syndrome whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 15:20 -0500
    Re: charlatan syndrome Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-13 15:31 -0400
      Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 12:49 -0700
      Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:14 -0700
        Re: charlatan syndrome Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:45 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:47 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:52 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-14 10:46 +0000
          Re: charlatan syndrome patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-14 07:12 -0700
            Crank syndrome "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 07:17 -0700
            Re: charlatan syndrome Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 10:05 -0700
              Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 13:43 -0700
                Re: charlatan syndrome Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 14:10 -0700
                  Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 19:26 -0700
                    Re: charlatan syndrome Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:18 -0700
                      Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:58 -0700
                        Re: charlatan syndrome Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 19:01 -0400
                          Re: charlatan syndrome Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:29 -0700
                            Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:11 -0700
                              Re: charlatan syndrome Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 21:56 -0700
                                Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 22:47 -0700
                      Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 23:44 -0700
                  Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:09 -0700
        Re: charlatan syndrome JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 16:28 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-13 19:13 -0500
          Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 21:18 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-14 10:52 +0000
            Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:59 -0700
          Re: charlatan syndrome Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 01:15 -0400
            Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 23:42 -0700
              Re: charlatan syndrome Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 02:09 -0400
                Re: charlatan syndrome Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 23:22 -0700
    Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:10 -0700
      Re: charlatan syndrome Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:27 +0200
    Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:49 -0700
      Re: charlatan syndrome Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 13:56 -0700

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

#617643

On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > 
>> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one 
>> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin: 
>> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr., 
>> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon 
>> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can 
>> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed 
>> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example, 
>> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that 
>> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has 
>> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New 
>> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson 
>> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison.
>> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics 
>> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced 
>> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel -- 
>> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and 
> the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is 
> totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the 
> critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded 
> inclination to appeal to authority.

Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You 
were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein 
and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely 
based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery.


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

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

#617645

On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 09:25:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: 
> 
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > 
> >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one 
> >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin: 
> >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr., 
> >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon 
> >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can 
> >> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed 
> >> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example, 
> >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that 
> >> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has 
> >> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New 
> >> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson 
> >> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison. 
> >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics 
> >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced 
> >> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel -- 
> >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots 
> > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and 
> > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is 
> > totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the 
> > critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded 
> > inclination to appeal to authority.
> Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You 
> were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein 
> and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely 
> based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery.

And the only true authority is The Shit, and its priests!!!!

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

#617777

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: 
> 
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > 
> >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one 
> >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin: 
> >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr., 
> >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon 
> >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can 
> >> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed 
> >> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example, 
> >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that 
> >> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has 
> >> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New 
> >> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson 
> >> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison. 
> >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics 
> >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced 
> >> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel -- 
> >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots 
> > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and 
> > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is 
> > totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the 
> > critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded 
> > inclination to appeal to authority.
> Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You 
> were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein 
> and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely 
> based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery.
> -- 
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Gladly. Anyone demanding the opponent use their own authorities is making an appeal to their own authorities. This is done all the time by relativists here because they cannot give a reasoned in response.

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

#617783

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:55:37 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: 
> > 
> > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > 
> > >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one 
> > >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin: 
> > >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr., 
> > >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon 
> > >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can 
> > >> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed 
> > >> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example, 
> > >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that 
> > >> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has 
> > >> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New 
> > >> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson 
> > >> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison. 
> > >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics 
> > >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced 
> > >> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel -- 
> > >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots 
> > > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and 
> > > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is 
> > > totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the 
> > > critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded 
> > > inclination to appeal to authority. 
> > Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You 
> > were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein 
> > and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely 
> > based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery. 
> > -- 
> > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> Gladly. Anyone demanding the opponent use their own authorities is making an appeal to their own authorities. This is done all the time by relativists here because they cannot give a reasoned in response.

It's only done when the physical constraints of a forum like this prevent
one from providing a proper response. I (and some others here) now and
then do post very detailed explanations but this is both time-consuming and
largely wasted on ignorant fools who cannot even understand what makes
them wrong.

There is simply no such thing as any reciprocity here. The sooner you stop
fantasising about your competence regarding this matter, the better it
will be for you. 

--
Jan

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

#617825

On 8/15/2023 11:55 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Gladly. 

> Anyone demanding the opponent use their own authorities is making 
> an appeal to their own authorities. This is done all the time by 
> relativists here because they cannot give a reasoned in response.

Bwahahahaha! This s precisely what you've been doing since your
name first appeared in this newsgroup. And of course when this
behavior is brought to your attention you ignore it.

One sign of insanity is living by a credo that the same rules you
apply to others do not apply to you. Thanks for voluntarily
clarifying your own status.

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

#617781

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: 
> 
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > 
> >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one 
> >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin: 
> >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr., 
> >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon 
> >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can 
> >> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed 
> >> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example, 
> >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that 
> >> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has 
> >> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New 
> >> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson 
> >> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison. 
> >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics 
> >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced 
> >> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel -- 
> >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots 
> > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and 
> > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is 
> > totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the 
> > critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded 
> > inclination to appeal to authority.
> Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You 
> were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein 
> and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely 
> based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery.
> -- 
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
You don't understand that everyone must choose their own authorities or rely on an appeal to authority instead of reason.

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

#617784

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:57:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: 
> > 
> > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> > >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > 
> > >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one 
> > >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin: 
> > >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr., 
> > >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon 
> > >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can 
> > >> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed 
> > >> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example, 
> > >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that 
> > >> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has 
> > >> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New 
> > >> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson 
> > >> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison. 
> > >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics 
> > >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced 
> > >> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel -- 
> > >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots 
> > > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and 
> > > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is 
> > > totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the 
> > > critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded 
> > > inclination to appeal to authority. 
> > Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You 
> > were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein 
> > and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely 
> > based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery. 
> > -- 
> > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> You don't understand that everyone must choose their own authorities or rely on an appeal to authority instead of reason.

Not always. I can provide full justification for what I say about relativity.
No need to appeal to any "authority".

Again, there is no reciprocal relationship between you and an expert.

--
Jan

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

#617785

On 2023-08-15 16:57:47 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > On 
>> Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden 
>> wrote:> >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> 
>> >> >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, 
>> one> >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually 
>> has....Origin:> >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed 
>> remedies): from Fr.,> >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > 
>> babble'."-Babylon> >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 
>> 2= five or that he can> >> change the> > distance and time in the speed 
>> equation to keep the speed> >> the same> > regardless of relative 
>> motion.> >> > For example,> >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of 
>> scientists have long recognized that> >> relativity is> > charlatanry 
>> when they point out that the emperor has> >> no clothes.> > 
>> Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New> >> Clothes 
>> Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson> >> 
>> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same 
>> comparison.> >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications 
>> in physics> >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who 
>> are convinced> >> already.>> What's the basis for your 
>> "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel --> >> biochemist, not a physicist, but 
>> detector of crackpots> > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the 
>> critics is correct, and> > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. 
>> The point is relativity is> > totally phony, as has been shown if you 
>> would ever deign to examine the> > critic's works which you are 
>> ignorant of because of your weak-minded> > inclination to appeal to 
>> authority.
>> Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You> 
>> were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: 
>> Einstein> and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" 
>> was entirely> based on his writing stuff that agreed with your 
>> crackpottery.
>> --
>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> You don't understand that everyone must choose their own authorities or 
> rely on an appeal to authority instead of reason.

You need to look up "authoritative" in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean 
what you seem to think. Specifically, it doesn't mean that any text 
that has an author is authoritative. I remind you that it was you, not 
me, that introduced the word  "authoritative" to this discussion.


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

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

#617789

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-15 16:57:47 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: 
> 
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> >> On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > On 
> >> Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden 
> >> wrote:> >> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> 
> >> >> >> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, 
> >> one> >> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually 
> >> has....Origin:> >> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed 
> >> remedies): from Fr.,> >> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > 
> >> babble'."-Babylon> >> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 
> >> 2= five or that he can> >> change the> > distance and time in the speed 
> >> equation to keep the speed> >> the same> > regardless of relative 
> >> motion.> >> > For example,> >> relativists.> >> > Thousands of 
> >> scientists have long recognized that> >> relativity is> > charlatanry 
> >> when they point out that the emperor has> >> no clothes.> > 
> >> Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New> >> Clothes 
> >> Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson> >> 
> >> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same 
> >> comparison.> >> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications 
> >> in physics> >> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who 
> >> are convinced> >> already.>> What's the basis for your 
> >> "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel --> >> biochemist, not a physicist, but 
> >> detector of crackpots> > The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the 
> >> critics is correct, and> > the defenders of relativity are gibberish. 
> >> The point is relativity is> > totally phony, as has been shown if you 
> >> would ever deign to examine the> > critic's works which you are 
> >> ignorant of because of your weak-minded> > inclination to appeal to 
> >> authority. 
> >> Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You> 
> >> were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: 
> >> Einstein> and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" 
> >> was entirely> based on his writing stuff that agreed with your 
> >> crackpottery. 
> >> -- 
> >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots 
> > You don't understand that everyone must choose their own authorities or 
> > rely on an appeal to authority instead of reason.
> You need to look up "authoritative" in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean 
> what you seem to think. Specifically, it doesn't mean that any text 
> that has an author is authoritative. I remind you that it was you, not 
> me, that introduced the word "authoritative" to this discussion.
> -- 
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
You fail to understand that reason is the authority not your idols.

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

#617827

On 8/15/2023 12:16 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> You fail to understand that reason is the authority not your idols.

Quiet!!! Madman speaking!

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

#617826

On 8/15/2023 11:57 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-08-13 19:07:35 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2023-08-13 18:26:37 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> >
>>>> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one
>>>> who claims more skill or knowledge than> > he actually has....Origin:
>>>> C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of> > supposed remedies): from Fr.,
>>>> from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to> > babble'."-Babylon
>>>> Dictionary.> >> > For example, one who says 2 + 2= five or that he can
>>>> change the> > distance and time in the speed equation to keep the speed
>>>> the same> > regardless of relative motion.> >> > For example,
>>>> relativists.> >> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that
>>>> relativity is> > charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has
>>>> no clothes.> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New
>>>> Clothes Syndrome:> > The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson
>>>> c.2006. Not to> > mention many others who have made the same comparison.
>>>> Citing another crackpot with no evident qualifications in physics
>>>> won't> convince anyone apart from other crackpots who are convinced
>>>> already.>> What's the basis for your "Authoritative"?>>> --> athel --
>>>> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>> The basis is reasoning. The reasoning of the critics is correct, and
>>> the defenders of relativity are gibberish. The point is relativity is
>>> totally phony, as has been shown if you would ever deign to examine the
>>> critic's works which you are ignorant of because of your weak-minded
>>> inclination to appeal to authority.
>> Please point to somewhere where you think I appealed to authority. You
>> were the one who appealed to authority ("Authoritative source: Einstein
>> and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome"). Your "authority" was entirely
>> based on his writing stuff that agreed with your crackpottery.
>> -- 
>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

> You don't understand that everyone must choose their own authorities or rely on an appeal to authority instead of reason.

You pose these as mutually exclusive features. The are not.

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

#617584

On 8/13/2023 2:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən]
> n. quack, impostor, fraud, one who claims more skill or knowledge than he actually has....Origin: C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of supposed remedies): from Fr., from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to babble'."-Babylon Dictionary.
> 

> Thousands of scientists have long recognized that relativity is charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Why haven't any one of these "thousands of scientists" ever provided a 
proof that relativity is wrong and won a practically guaranteed Nobel Prize?
> 
> Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome: The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson c.2006. Not to mention many others who have made the same comparison.

Another electrical engineer purporting to be an expert of physics and 
relativity. Who was it who noticed that electrical engineers were the 
biggest source of cranks?

p.s. Amazon lists one copy of a paperback available for $1200+. Ultra 
rare because nobody ever bought it? If you own a copy, sell it to an 
even bigger relativity sucker and laugh all the way to the bank.

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

#617587

On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 21:31:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/13/2023 2:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən] 
> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one who claims more skill or knowledge than he actually has....Origin: C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of supposed remedies): from Fr., from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to babble'."-Babylon Dictionary. 
> >
> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that relativity is charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has no clothes.
> Why haven't any one of these "thousands of scientists" ever provided a 
> proof that relativity is wrong and won a practically guaranteed Nobel Prize?

Nothing can ever be proven to a fanatic idiot like you and
your fellow woeshippers, stupid Mike.

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

#617593

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:31:19 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/13/2023 2:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > charlatan[char·la·tan || 'ʃɑːlətən] 
> > n. quack, impostor, fraud, one who claims more skill or knowledge than he actually has....Origin: C17 (denoting an itinerant seller of supposed remedies): from Fr., from Ital. ciarlatano, from ciarlare 'to babble'."-Babylon Dictionary. 
> >
> > Thousands of scientists have long recognized that relativity is charlatanry when they point out that the emperor has no clothes.
> Why haven't any one of these "thousands of scientists" ever provided a 
> proof that relativity is wrong and won a practically guaranteed Nobel Prize?
> > 
> > Authoritative source: "Einstein and the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome: The Expose of a Charlatan" by Robert L. Henderson c.2006. Not to mention many others who have made the same comparison.
> Another electrical engineer purporting to be an expert of physics and 
> relativity. Who was it who noticed that electrical engineers were the 
> biggest source of cranks? 
> 
> p.s. Amazon lists one copy of a paperback available for $1200+. Ultra 
> rare because nobody ever bought it? If you own a copy, sell it to an 
> even bigger relativity sucker and laugh all the way to the bank.
Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs. If you really want to defend relativity effectively, you'll have to study the critics. Then you will no longer believe in the charlatanry of relativity.

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

#617595

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs. 

Provide just one of them. Just one.

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

#617596

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs.
> Provide just one of them. Just one.

Tell us which of the following experiments is invalid...

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

... and why...

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

#617598

On Sunday, 13 August 2023 at 22:45:25 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs.
> Provide just one of them. Just one.

I did. The only answer from you were Polish jokes, poor
trash.

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

#617650

Le 13/08/2023 à 22:45, Paul Alsing a écrit :
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
>> Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs. 
> 
> Provide just one of them. Just one.

I think that being neither a psychologist, nor a sociologist, nor a 
theologian, nor a doctor, you cannot understand the magnitude of the 
problem.

Do you really think the evidence would be interesting?

Read Jesus Christ again: "Truly I say to you that a theoretician who would 
bring the theoretical proof that the RR is false would not be believed,
even if he raised someone from the dead".

I remind you (all the same) that I am the best theorist of relativistic 
kinematics since Poincaré until today (Einstein, it's pure rubbish), and 
that when I say that if we use the relativistic covariance in apparent 
speeds (what we see in telescopes), the theory does not hold for a second, 
I have never been able to be contradicted or denied.

I will talk later about the rotating relativistic disk (another 
theoretical absurdity of relativistic physicists).

R.H. 

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

#617657

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs.
> Provide just one of them. Just one.
Okay, I will.  

Somewhere there is a celestial object traveling at a relativistic velocity relative to the solar system.  Relativity clearly requires that for that object the earth is orbiting through the sun's spacetime at a velocity no longer sufficient to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun.  And yet we remain in stable orbit.  Conclusion: relativity must therefore be false.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum

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

#617659 — Crank syndrome

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 7:12:52 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > > Relativity has been proven wrong thousands of times with thousands of proofs. 
> > Provide just one of them. Just one.
> Okay, I will. 
> 
> Conclusion: Pat Dolan is a stubborn imbecile.

Yup

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

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

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

csiph-web