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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c89b090-e55a-4513-9cc5-56c5c1053d82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617929 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > 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. You did not answer my question; when did you decide that *you* know more about relativity than the credentialed experts? It is crystal clear that this is how you view yourself. You think that all the actual experts are idiots, don't you? In reality, you don't know what you don't know!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e114d172-f7b2-4878-a17c-59076fea269fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617968 |
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 05:43:17 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > 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. > You did not answer my question; when did you decide that *you* know more about relativity than the credentialed experts? As they couldn't even notice that their beloved Shit is not even consistent...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 10:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kk62ehFa8ekU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617968 |
On 2023-08-17 03:43:12 +0000, Paul Alsing said: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark > Crossen wrote: [ a load of his usual frothing at the mouth ] > >> You are a silly man concerned with recognition, and I don't care about >> being recognized at all. > > You did not answer my question; when did you decide that *you* know > more about relativity than the credentialed experts? It is crystal > clear that this is how you view yourself. You think that all the actual > experts are idiots, don't you? > > In reality, you don't know what you don't know! He's unlikely to learn anything. He still doesn't understand what's wrong with posting a "review" of a book that he hasn't read. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 14:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b5a8305-8ce2-4b13-b86a-18faeabf3584n@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, You don't understand. Relativity does not need any "defending". It's a physics theory and as such it stands or falls on experimental results and certain methods of procedure (practical and theoretical). So unless you produce an experiment disproving relativity, you have no arguments. Such arguments were possible in the past, when the theoretical ramifications of the theory were not completely investigated and understood. But today we know relativity cannot be disproved on theoretical grounds any more than Euclidean geometry can be so disproved. OTOH I completely agree that relativity (and many (most?) physics theories have serious *philosophical* problems. This is well-known but it's a separate issue. Even pure mathematics has philosophical problems, e.g. the status of the continuum hypothesis, etc. > so you don't. It's not defensible and never has been. It's no more and no less "defensible" than any other theory in physics. So your claim here is not even wrong, it's just venting. > 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. Gobbledygook. Your posts are nothing but pseudoscience and a monomania on full display. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 20:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <756506e6-92c2-440d-aa04-fdc6a2b71f95n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617787 |
On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 19:12:19 UTC+2, 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: Come onm, trash, your beloved Shit has been proven inconsistent, your wise facesa can't change it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 21:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5697ebc7-2a91-455e-8dde-a6938c2bed63n@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 You are only interested in silencing your opponents. How do you tell who's telling the truth? The ones trying to silence the others are lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 00:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kk0h7aFdbb0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617738 |
On 8/14/2023 11:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: <...> > The ones trying to silence the others are lying. Yes you are. The real pity is that you fail to recognize yourself. That needs a new descriptive, like Super-Dunning-Kruger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f7f8205-077a-4c08-a142-0b2949e19c39n@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 It is hard to imagine someone being so ignorant as to fail to know the Lorentz transformations were designed to save the ether from the null result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8dD_u1-A5PNkGOilNHWWcv8gEOg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #617733 |
Le 15/08/2023 à 05:27, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : > the ether wind ? Mythology. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-15 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23851fe0-ff3a-495c-9be6-add0ed41f096n@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. > 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. Of course, the Lorentz transformations include formulas describing the ether wind exactly as they describe the effect on total time by the current in a round trip in a boat up and down the river. LONGITUDINAL ETHER WIND EQUATION: T= 2L/C X 1/ (1- V^2/C^2) Example: River current 3mph; boat 6 mph v^2= 9/ C^2= 36 9/36= 1/4= .25; 1- .25= .75 ; 1/.75=1.333 Check: Distance= 3 miles both ways; speed downstream= 6 + 3= 9 so 3 miles/9mph= .333 hours; upstream 6-3= 3mph; 3/3= 1; 1 + .333= 1.333 hours Without current= 6miles/6 mph= 1 hour.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 12:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kk5gigF72p1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617733 |
On 15-Aug-23 1:27 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > 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. There appear to be three kinds of people. a) Who understand relativity, see how it works, and are content with that. b) Who do not understand relativity, know that they do not understand it, and are content with that. c) Who do not understand relativity, but think that they do, and in consequence have an unshakeable belief that there something wrong with it. So, which are you? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-16 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f6ef865-8127-415c-98ae-8083fa88163dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617962 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:56:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15-Aug-23 1:27 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > 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. > There appear to be three kinds of people. > > a) Who understand relativity, see how it works, and are content with that. > b) Who do not understand relativity, know that they do not understand > it, and are content with that. > c) Who do not understand relativity, but think that they do, and in > consequence have an unshakeable belief that there something wrong with it. The (c)-type is common in life in general, not only in relativity or even science in general. Newton and Goethe and many others wrote about this already centuries ago (namely the fact that the least knowledgeable are frequently the most sure of themselves). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 09:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kk628kFa7r6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617969 |
On 2023-08-17 04:16:55 +0000, JanPB said: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:56:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15-Aug-23 1:27 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:> > 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. >> There appear to be three kinds of people.>> a) Who understand >> relativity, see how it works, and are content with that.> b) Who do not >> understand relativity, know that they do not understand> it, and are >> content with that.> c) Who do not understand relativity, but think that >> they do, and in> consequence have an unshakeable belief that there >> something wrong with it. > The (c)-type is common in life in general, not only in relativity or > even science > in general. Newton and Goethe and many others wrote about this already > centuries ago (namely the fact that the least knowledgeable are frequently > the most sure of themselves). Shakespeare, even: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dce9e511-4bcf-4a1c-aabb-80e8a4b3b1c8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617969 |
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 06:17:00 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > The (c)-type is common in life in general, not only in relativity or even science > in general. Newton and Goethe and many others wrote about this already > centuries ago (namely the fact that the least knowledgeable are frequently > the most sure of themselves). Well, you surely are. And syntax shmyntax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94d2e40a-b8e8-40c6-9170-e18b7ab52efcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617969 |
On August 16, JanPB wrote: >> a) Who understand relativity, see how it works, and are content with that. >> b) Who do not understand relativity, know that they do not understand >> it, and are content with that. >> c) Who do not understand relativity, but think that they do, and in >> consequence have an unshakeable belief that there something wrong with it. > > The (c)-type is common in life in general, not only in relativity or even science > in general. Newton and Goethe and many others wrote about this already > centuries ago (namely the fact that the least knowledgeable are frequently > the most sure of themselves). "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get him out of the subject he was educated." - Mark Twain (see also Roger Penrose on neurology) -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f4bfcf7-e541-4931-af9c-d55346b8e7a8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618302 |
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get > him out of the subject he was educated." > - Mark Twain Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers... https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31aed994-0042-410a-9f90-5fd354f6d121n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618307 |
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:40:21 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > > > "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get > > him out of the subject he was educated." > > - Mark Twain > Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers... > > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/ However, it is still a great quote...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 23:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfqceo.15jbipmdn1sgfN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618307 |
Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:25:37?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > > > "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get > > him out of the subject he was educated." > > - Mark Twain > > Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers... > > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/ That applies primarily to Americans. European academics, and German ones in particular, tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt) A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man, in the first place. (and only a subject specialist only in the second) In other words, professors were supposed and required to have general cultural awareness and knowledge, Jan -- <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_education>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-19 22:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc7ed27f-4779-41f1-9133-a44a0efe839bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618317 |
On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 23:19:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:25:37?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > > > > > "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get > > > him out of the subject he was educated." > > > - Mark Twain > > > > Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers... > > > > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/ > That applies primarily to Americans. > European academics, and German ones in particular, > tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt) > > A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man, > in the first place. > (and only a subject specialist only in the second) > > In other words, professors were supposed and required > to have general cultural awareness and knowledge, And communists were supposed to be humble servants of working people, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcfe56d0-9609-42c7-9abc-86a476cdf5adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618317 |
On August 19, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get >>> him out of the subject he was educated." > >> Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers... >> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/ > > That applies primarily to Americans. > European academics, and German ones in particular, > tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt) > A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man, > in the first place. > (and only a subject specialist only in the second) > In other words, professors were supposed and required > to have general cultural awareness and knowledge, > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_education> uh huh Germans smart, americans dumb. Kurt Godel, who sits on everybody's list of Certified Jeenyuses, was a German (racially) professor, and presumably man of culture. Making regular visits to Berlin for the opera and philharmonic. He stated that intelligence could not be the result of blind, random evolution, but had to come from... somewhere else. He was vague on the specifics of that elsewhere. Godel was a cultured intellectual, not a blowhard, who always knew what he was talking about, unlike those Texas cowboys. Therefore Darwin was wrong, and evolution refuted. QED -- Rich
[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