Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617733 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-14 20:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-26 13:56 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 62 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 20:27 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 20:30 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 20:36 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 01:57 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 20:44 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:12 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:02 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:59 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 22:13 -0400
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-16 11:17 -0500
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 01:38 -0400
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 13:09 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 19:58 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 20:17 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 21:35 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 22:07 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:58 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-16 21:06 -0500
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 09:55 +0200
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:43 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:18 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 10:01 +0200
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 14:59 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 20:58 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:00 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-15 00:36 -0500
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:49 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-15 12:56 +0000
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 10:40 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-17 12:56 +1000
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 21:16 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 09:58 +0200
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 01:03 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 12:25 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 23:19 +0200
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:00 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-26 12:29 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 14:25 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:17 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-17 10:24 +0000
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 04:20 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 14:06 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:37 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:45 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 03:08 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:45 -0400
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 20:11 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 02:59 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 17:15 -0400
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 14:56 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:38 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 13:47 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-26 15:51 -0500
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 13:57 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 15:00 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 11:11 -0700
Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 13:56 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 20:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid. |
| Message-ID | <b0399b57-b3d0-4d77-9ecc-3a9c153d26fcn@googlegroups.com> |
a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7762348a-11ff-40ca-a076-f7b0cb0541ban@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617733 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. False. > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. I suggest you try something else for a hobby. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c9f678f-f27b-4e70-899e-83752eee48c9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617734 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > False. > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > -- > Jan As usual, you spout stupid, ignorant claims. Anyone can easily know that you are the one who is wrong. You seem to think anybody would rely on your statements. They would be fools. Einstein used the same formulas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 01:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3f66e0b-6315-451e-9fca-d19c4bd890bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617736 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > False. > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > -- > > Jan > As usual, you spout stupid, ignorant claims. Nope. It's you. > Anyone can easily know that you are the one who is wrong. No. What you say about relativity is 100% nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 20:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90651534-5629-493f-ac81-8ef1563ba98cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617734 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > False. > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > -- > Jan Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75785d3c-48fd-4943-bb20-4fbb7ba887a7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617737 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > False. > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > -- > > Jan > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the problem is that: 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and alternative theories. 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual technical argument), etc. All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself as its king. Feh. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee1ec2c3-69e7-4603-b482-a1a8a535d82fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617787 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > False. > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > problem is that: > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > alternative theories. > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > technical argument), etc. > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > as its king. Feh. > > -- > Jan I can't tell you how impressed I am!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f09165a2-8a61-4893-8e47-4a50ba0fde14n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617796 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > False. > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > problem is that: > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > alternative theories. > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > technical argument), etc. > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > as its king. Feh. > > > > -- > > Jan > I can't tell you how impressed I am! I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. The sooner the better. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd55ad29-1175-4f01-8a9c-23b506924911n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617813 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > False. > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > problem is that: > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > The sooner the better. > > -- > Jan Relativists cannot rebut the most elementary criticisms because relativity really has these faults. So they pretend to be above it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubhbch$35hk7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617822 |
On 8/15/2023 3:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>> There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest >>>> what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself >>>> as its king. Feh. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jan >>> I can't tell you how impressed I am! >> I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. >> The sooner the better. > Relativists cannot rebut the most elementary criticisms because relativity really has these faults. So they pretend to be above it all. It was nice to see a glimmer of sanity from Laurence. It's too bad it lasted less than three hours, and likely lasted only a few seconds at most before showing symptoms of the family's insanity again..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kk4b4hF1qhmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617855 |
On 8/15/2023 9:13 PM, Volney wrote: > On 8/15/2023 3:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark >>> Crossen wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > >>>>> There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you >>>>> haven't the faintest >>>>> what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland >>>>> with yourself >>>>> as its king. Feh. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jan > >>>> I can't tell you how impressed I am! > >>> I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies >>> behind. >>> The sooner the better. > >> Relativists cannot rebut the most elementary criticisms because >> relativity really has these faults. So they pretend to be above it all. > > It was nice to see a glimmer of sanity from Laurence. It's too bad it > lasted less than three hours, and likely lasted only a few seconds at > most before showing symptoms of the family's insanity again.. I took the comment in question to be sarchasm. But that's just me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 01:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubkbp5$3lrvk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617916 |
On 8/16/2023 12:17 PM, whodat wrote: > On 8/15/2023 9:13 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 8/15/2023 3:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark >>>> Crossen wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: >> >>>>>> There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you >>>>>> haven't the faintest >>>>>> what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland >>>>>> with yourself >>>>>> as its king. Feh. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jan >> >>>>> I can't tell you how impressed I am! >> >>>> I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile >>>> fantasies behind. >>>> The sooner the better. >> >>> Relativists cannot rebut the most elementary criticisms because >>> relativity really has these faults. So they pretend to be above it all. >> >> It was nice to see a glimmer of sanity from Laurence. It's too bad it >> lasted less than three hours, and likely lasted only a few seconds at >> most before showing symptoms of the family's insanity again.. > > I took the comment in question to be sarchasm. But that's just me. It probably was. I was being sarcastic responding to the moment of sanity (whether sarcastic or real, doesn't matter)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <926f7b6e-e380-4ff1-9923-fcd95d992745n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617813 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > False. > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > problem is that: > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > The sooner the better. > > -- > Jan Poor Jan has to do ad hominem for his denial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16eafefe-8b25-4e94-add2-369c642a444dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617824 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > > problem is that: > > > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > > The sooner the better. > > > > -- > > Jan > Poor Jan has to do ad hominem for his denial. You can think of it as ad hominem but it's just the truth. And I don't "have" to do anything, stop pretending. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 20:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <271cf8cb-b176-4006-8d8d-58057f485efdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617859 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:58:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > > > problem is that: > > > > > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > > > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > > > The sooner the better. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > Poor Jan has to do ad hominem for his denial. > You can think of it as ad hominem but it's just the truth. And I don't > "have" to do anything, stop pretending. > > -- > Jan You can't do anything to defend relativity, so you don't. It's not defensible and never has been. All one needs to know is one should not change the time and length in a speed equation to keep the speed the same because that is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 21:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abe76c88-6821-4432-a583-3938119ecab1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617860 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:17:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:58:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > > > > problem is that: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > > > > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > > > > The sooner the better. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > Poor Jan has to do ad hominem for his denial. > > You can think of it as ad hominem but it's just the truth. And I don't > > "have" to do anything, stop pretending. > > > > -- > > Jan > You can't do anything to defend relativity, so you don't. It's not defensible and never has been. All one needs to know is one should not change the time and length in a speed equation to keep the speed the same because that is wrong. Exactly when was it, Crossen, that you decided that you knew more about relativity than the tens of thousands of scientists who preceded you over the last century? Are you expecting to receive the Nobel in the near future due to your overwhelming insights? This is amazing considering that you don't actually know the first thing about the subject matter!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d112afdb-e5d4-4a93-8ae1-57dc3428433dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617870 |
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 06:35:31 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:17:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:58:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > > > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > > > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > > > > > problem is that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > > > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > > > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > > > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > > > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > > > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > > > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > > > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > > > > > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > > > > > The sooner the better. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > Poor Jan has to do ad hominem for his denial. > > > You can think of it as ad hominem but it's just the truth. And I don't > > > "have" to do anything, stop pretending. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > You can't do anything to defend relativity, so you don't. It's not defensible and never has been. All one needs to know is one should not change the time and length in a speed equation to keep the speed the same because that is wrong. > Exactly when was it, Crossen, that you decided that you knew more about relativity than the tens of thousands of scientists who preceded you over the last century? As the idiots were unable to notice that their Shit is not even consistent...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2a61f3a-5285-40e7-ab01-1c7a3534a4a8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617870 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:35:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:17:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:58:49 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:12:19 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result. > > > > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > > b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose. > > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. A pseudoscientific word salad. > > > > > > > > > > c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate. > > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you try something else for a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Most critics of relativity can see the deceitful manner in which relativists defend relativity here, and they stand back and just read the skeptics and ignore the relativists. You people don't persuade any skeptics. > > > > > > > The problem with people on this NG who are against relativity is NOT that > > > > > > > they are against it. It's one part of being a scientist to be skeptical. But the > > > > > > > problem is that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. ALL of their arguments HERE are provably wrong AT BEST. Most of the time their > > > > > > > arguments are in fact not even wrong. There do exist interesting critiques and > > > > > > > alternative theories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. They cannot understand expert refutations, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Despite item 2 above, they accuse everyone who opposes them of being > > > > > > > "in a cult" or "worshipping Einstein" or "regurgitating what they've been told" > > > > > > > (this last one is the standard answer when confronted with an actual > > > > > > > technical argument), etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of your posts criticising relativity so far have been pseudoscientific junk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a way to criticise physics and its theories but you haven't the faintest > > > > > > > what it's all about. You live in a pseudointellectual dreamland with yourself > > > > > > > as its king. Feh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > I can't tell you how impressed I am! > > > > > I'm glad to hear that. Let's hope you leave those infantile fantasies behind. > > > > > The sooner the better. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > Poor Jan has to do ad hominem for his denial. > > > You can think of it as ad hominem but it's just the truth. And I don't > > > "have" to do anything, stop pretending. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > You can't do anything to defend relativity, so you don't. It's not defensible and never has been. All one needs to know is one should not change the time and length in a speed equation to keep the speed the same because that is wrong. > Exactly when was it, Crossen, that you decided that you knew more about relativity than the tens of thousands of scientists who preceded you over the last century? Are you expecting to receive the Nobel in the near future due to your overwhelming insights? > > This is amazing considering that you don't actually know the first thing about the subject matter! You are a silly man concerned with recognition, and I don't care about being recognized at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 21:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kk5dkfF72nqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617929 |
On 8/16/2023 2:58 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:35:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: <...> >> Exactly when was it, Crossen, that you decided that you knew more about relativity than the tens of thousands of scientists who preceded you over the last century? Are you expecting to receive the Nobel in the near future due to your overwhelming insights? >> This is amazing considering that you don't actually know the first thing about the subject matter! > You are a silly man concerned with recognition, and I don't care about being recognized at all. That's actually not something to brag about, as you are doing here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 09:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kk6235Fa703U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617960 |
On 2023-08-17 02:06:03 +0000, whodat said: > On 8/16/2023 2:58 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:35:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > <...> > >>> Exactly when was it, Crossen, that you decided that you knew more about >>> relativity than the tens of thousands of scientists who preceded you >>> over the last century? Are you expecting to receive the Nobel in the >>> near future due to your overwhelming insights? > >>> This is amazing considering that you don't actually know the first >>> thing about the subject matter! > >> You are a silly man concerned with recognition, and I don't care about >> being recognized at all. > > That's actually not something to brag about, as you are doing here. I don't think he's in any danger of being recognized -- not as a scientist, anyway: he's already recgnized as a crackpot. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web