Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #618428 > unrolled thread

The extraordinary popular delusion of relativity and the madness of crowds.

Started by	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
First post	2023-08-20 20:47 -0700
Last post	2023-08-21 11:04 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 100 — 14 participants

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

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#618892

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 15:14 -0700
Message-ID	<9f24e29a-7431-4f19-abc3-1e21093f2710n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618888

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
> That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> 
> You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

--
Jan

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

#618910

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 20:23 -0700
Message-ID	<9203bbd8-2054-4861-bc47-0c8292da47b7n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618892

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > 
> > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
> Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. 
> But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by 
> definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
It is irrelevant that it is Einstein. It is relevant it is still today's relativity equations that include the ether wind equation regardless of your empty denials.

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

#619497

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
Date	2023-09-03 21:58 +1000
Message-ID	<kljan1FlgmeU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#618910

On 26-Aug-23 1:23 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
>>> That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
>>> without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.
>>>
>>> You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
>> Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
>> different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
>> is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
>> equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
>> sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
>> be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
>> in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
>> the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
>> vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
>> But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
>> of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
>> definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
>> them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jan
> It is irrelevant that it is Einstein. It is relevant it is still today's relativity equations that include the ether wind equation regardless of your empty denials.

If Einstein had come up with the equations first, what would you be 
saying about Lorentz's work? That he was putting an ether wind where one 
didn't belong?

Sylvia.

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

#618917

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-08-26 01:12 -0400
Message-ID	<ucc1j5$ejc1$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#618892

On 8/25/2023 6:14 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
>> That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
>> without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.
>>
>> You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
> 
> Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
> different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
> is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
> equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
> sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
> be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
> in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
> the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
> vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
> But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
> of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
> definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
> them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

Remember, when dealing with the likes of Laurence, Dick etc. we are 
dealing with the insane. Don't expect the insane to act sanely!

Laurence has the additional drawback that his insanity is likely inherited.

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

#618924

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 22:30 -0700
Message-ID	<4b507e80-9ee6-4195-ac46-01aa9ddd514dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618917

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 07:12:09 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 6:14 PM, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> >> That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> >> without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> >> 
> >> You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon. 
> > 
> > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> > sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> > be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> > in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> > the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> > vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. 
> > But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> > of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by 
> > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
> Remember, when dealing with the likes of Laurence, Dick etc. we are 
> dealing with the insane. Don't expect the insane to act sanely! 

And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

#619197

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-08-29 22:36 +0200
Message-ID	<1qg2dqq.1dfsr341f8yzpmN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#618892

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he
> > > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
> > > 
> > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
> > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > 
> > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
> 
> Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
> different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
> is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
> equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
> sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
> be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
> in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
> the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
> vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
> But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
> of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
> definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
> them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
and of course also Freud himself,

Jan

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

#619458

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-09-02 13:34 -0700
Message-ID	<4c5e660a-afa6-4be4-80e9-d6a229b96dc3n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619197

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he 
> > > > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> > > > 
> > > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> > > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > > 
> > > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon. 
> > 
> > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> > sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> > be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> > in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> > the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> > vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. 
> > But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> > of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by 
> > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
> But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure 
> that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein, 
> and of course also Freud himself, 
> 
> Jan
Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion by Frederick Crews.

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

#619461

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-09-02 23:00 +0200
Message-ID	<1qggco3.nul5na1dy9kmqN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#619458

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he
> > > > > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> > > > > 
> > > > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
> > > > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > > > 
> > > > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon. 
> > > 
> > > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> > > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> > > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> > > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> > > sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> > > be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> > > in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> > > the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> > > vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
> > > But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> > > of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
> > > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> > > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
> > But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure 
> > that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein, 
> > and of course also Freud himself, 
> > 
> > Jan
> Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion
> by Frederick Crews.
> 
Not everybody agrees, and as long as people keep trying to 'debunk' him
it cannot be over,

Jan

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

#619479

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-09-02 20:38 -0700
Message-ID	<399138a6-04a7-4a70-b77f-b5751d534cadn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619461

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:00:23 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > > > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he 
> > > > > > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> > > > > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon. 
> > > > 
> > > > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> > > > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> > > > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> > > > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> > > > sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> > > > be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> > > > in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> > > > the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> > > > vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. 
> > > > But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> > > > of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by 
> > > > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> > > > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something. 
> > > But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure 
> > > that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein, 
> > > and of course also Freud himself, 
> > > 
> > > Jan 
> > Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion 
> > by Frederick Crews. 
> >
> Not everybody agrees, and as long as people keep trying to 'debunk' him 
> it cannot be over, 
> 
> Jan
If you can't give up on Freud, no wonder you can't give up on Einstein.

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

#619494

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-09-03 13:01 +0200
Message-ID	<1qghbf5.1fnx95oemhi0cN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#619479

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:00:23?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas,
> > > > > > then he > derived an ether wind formula without an ether.
> > > > > > Ridiculous. > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he
> > > > > > derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it,
> > > > > > either.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
> > > > > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
> > > > > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
> > > > > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any sane
> > > > > and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would be much
> > > > > more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and in the
> > > > > second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be the
> > > > > fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more vilified for
> > > > > their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. But no,
> > > > > in both cases it's a person selected on the basis of... what
> > > > > exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
> > > > > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
> > > > > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
> > > > But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure 
> > > > that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein, 
> > > > and of course also Freud himself, 
> > > > 
> > > > Jan 
> > > Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion
> > > by Frederick Crews. 
> > >
> > Not everybody agrees, and as long as people keep trying to 'debunk' him
> > it cannot be over, 
> > 
> > Jan
> If you can't give up on Freud, no wonder you can't give up on Einstein.

Why me? The problem is you, with your 'down with Einstein' mania.

As for Freud: do a reality check, on Amazon for example.
All of Freuds original books are still available,
and there are hundreds if not thousands of books about Freud,
in many ways, about all kinds of aspects.

Freud certainly isn't someone who has been debunked once and for all,
to be forgotten about,

Jan

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

#619460

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-09-02 13:41 -0700
Message-ID	<663a99a7-e72c-411b-83d6-4d781b067290n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619197

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he 
> > > > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> > > > 
> > > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> > > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > > 
> > > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon. 
> > 
> > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> > sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> > be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> > in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> > the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> > vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. 
> > But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> > of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by 
> > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
> But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure 
> that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein, 
> and of course also Freud himself, 
> 
> Jan
Personally, I fully embrace Darwin. I just don't think the existence of evolution can positively rule out some other extraordinary factor.

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

#619488

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-09-03 11:18 +0200
Message-ID	<1qggdso.g92ax21cdm3flN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#619460

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > > On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he
> > > > > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. 
> > > > > 
> > > > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
> > > > without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> > > > 
> > > > You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon. 
> > > 
> > > Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of 
> > > different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this 
> > > is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's 
> > > equally random: in the first case one would think that by any 
> > > sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would 
> > > be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and 
> > > in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be 
> > > the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more 
> > > vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
> > > But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis 
> > > of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
> > > definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to 
> > > them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
> > But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure 
> > that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein, 
> > and of course also Freud himself, 
> > 
> > Jan
> Personally, I fully embrace Darwin. I just don't think the existence of
> evolution can positively rule out some other extraordinary factor.

Ruling out extraordinary fantasies isn't what science is for,

Jan

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

#619496

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-09-03 04:16 -0700
Message-ID	<dfbd9867-76df-4321-9769-de4a21bc56f7n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619488

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 11:18:27 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Ruling out extraordinary fantasies isn't what science is for, 

A pity your idiot guru wasn't informed about that.

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

#618909

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 20:21 -0700
Message-ID	<e96d12c1-caf4-48e8-b781-937f81c66829n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618888

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
> That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula 
> without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either. 
> 
> You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
It remains the fact that Einstein and relativity today still employ an ether wind equation so that is absolutely ridiculous.

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

#618922

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-08-26 01:28 -0400
Message-ID	<ucc2ir$eu7c$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#618909

On 8/25/2023 11:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
>> That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
>> without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.
>>
>> You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
> It remains the fact that Einstein and relativity today still employ an ether wind equation so that is absolutely ridiculous.

And it remains a fact that you are too stupid to understand that 
Einstein derived SR totally INDEPENDENTLY from LET, so nothing from LET 
is part of SR.

And it remains a fact that trying to say that SR, explicitly derived 
without using the concept of an ether, would have any such thing as an 
"ether wind", or angels dancing on the head of pins, or invisible pink 
fairies etc. is just plain STOOOOPID.

Tell us, which way do hurricanes on the moon rotate?

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

#618742

From	Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-23 21:16 -0700
Message-ID	<b14d659d-acef-4847-9e38-9ce36cf012fcn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618706

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

"Reasons" are not the same as "evidence". Exactly what :evidence" have any of these superheroes provided? Be specific!

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

#618749

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-23 22:20 -0700
Message-ID	<1c47f8b8-c27d-45d7-8bf9-a699646ff1f3n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618742

On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 06:16:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
> "Reasons" are not the same as "evidence". Exactly what :evidence" have any of these superheroes provided? Be specific!

Come on, trash, providing you evidence is
only making you spitting with Polish jokes.

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

#618744

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-08-23 21:35 -0700
Message-ID	<bebdd5fb-b5f3-4de9-b589-1fc36f449cb4n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618706

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:19:19 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> >
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I know some of the history, 
> > > > 
> > > > "History" of a subject is not the subject. 
> > > > 
> > > > > and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic. 
> > > > 
> > > > Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the 
> > > > "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of 
> > > > source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it 
> > > > nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it 
> > > > must be wrong? 
> > > 
> > > Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong. 
> >
> > Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his
> > infantile behaviour 
>
> Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

Perhaps it's because they can't count.

> In fact, it's highly irrational. For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation
> equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding
> the ether. So, it was absurd to keep those formulas,

It would be absurd to discard an equation if it describes what nature does, wouldn't you agree?

> which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

You seem to imply that the LT "makes" light behave "irrationally" :-)

“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

"Rationality" refers to human thought.  Nature doesn't care what humans think.

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

#618540

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-21 21:56 -0700
Message-ID	<259c84b3-990b-4297-ae11-c6cfef922408n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618503

On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 00:22:24 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > Please see: 
> > > > Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition 
> > > > by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 
> > > > by Gustav Le Bon (Author) 
> > > Another deranged monomaniac. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > Why is it that groups of people act irrationally? We know they do. Why would you be so sure relativity is rational when it has so many irrational claims? Science is not exempt from being irrational.
> It makes no more irrational claims than any other theory in physics. 

If you knew what "rational" means you wouldn't
fool yourself with such an absurd claim.

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

#618485

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-21 11:04 -0700
Message-ID	<447a9317-c1d1-4142-822b-7f02c321ad5bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618443

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > Please see: 
> > Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition 
> > by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition 
> > 
> > 
> > The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 
> > by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
> Another deranged monomaniac. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
"Rational thinkers" have not always been the most insightful and open-minded of people. Throughout history, "thinking rationally" has often become a guise for repressive attitudes toward the new or unconventional." & "Indeed, science and rational thinking have had a dubious and ragged history in our culture. . . . Louis Pasteur was widely ridiculed for his speculations about invisible creatures that caused illnesses." & "Ultimately, what we call rational thinking may just be a highly sophisticated and powerful method of self-delusion."  =
Rob Wipond, "The World is Round (and Other Mythologies of Modern Science)," The Humanist (March/April 1998)  https://robwipond.com/archives/325

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

csiph-web

The extraordinary popular delusion of relativity and the madness of crowds.

Contents

#618892

#618910

#619497

#618917

#618924

#619197

#619458

#619461

#619479

#619494

#619460

#619488

#619496

#618909

#618922

#618742

#618749

#618744

#618540

#618485