Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616937 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-06 15:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-23 08:26 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:37 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 19:08 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 20:34 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:18 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 01:04 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 11:15 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:24 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 10:21 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:32 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:39 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 16:58 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 18:41 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-08 07:30 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-08 21:49 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 08:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-16 07:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:04 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 12:57 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:52 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:37 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-09 08:26 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 12:43 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 11:54 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 18:25 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 11:14 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 21:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:05 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 22:57 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:21 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:35 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:37 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 16:16 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:17 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 21:47 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-10 07:31 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-11 08:20 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 18:19 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-17 07:42 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 00:53 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 02:04 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Booker Martos <etrs@eoaksmao.tb> - 2023-08-23 10:09 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-23 16:33 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-24 02:06 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-24 00:23 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:25 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 10:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-24 21:45 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 15:10 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:07 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:09 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Lee Mihailovich <mmhc@eoeilhll.av> - 2023-08-26 21:20 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:48 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:12 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-25 14:34 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 02:03 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:21 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 19:54 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Ryker Libman <kmki@kkrmkaik.km> - 2023-08-27 08:25 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Marcus Rempel <raer@rlsrmcaa.rr> - 2023-08-27 19:40 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-26 09:13 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 10:44 -0400
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:12 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-31 08:35 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 09:19 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 00:31 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-08 09:28 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 00:43 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-09-08 23:18 -0500
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 22:16 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-09 07:59 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 23:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-10 07:24 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 22:45 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-10 08:01 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 19:12 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 19:22 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 22:55 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 07:29 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 01:08 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 01:26 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 22:42 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 01:03 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 01:02 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Dourglas Mukaseev <glva@rlauaoks.rl> - 2023-09-16 09:25 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-30 07:52 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-28 12:22 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-11 08:44 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 23:46 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-13 08:33 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 23:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-15 08:42 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-15 00:35 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-16 07:35 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-15 22:45 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:32 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 12:28 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-16 07:50 +0200
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Lukas Vainberger <asag@rkarueik.ub> - 2023-08-16 11:42 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:18 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:57 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Chadrick Mahno <mdah@cacamcmm.ro> - 2023-08-09 21:59 +0000
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 13:18 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:47 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 11:03 -0700
Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-23 08:26 +0200
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 00:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6168fba9-2196-4ec0-a914-997dc2a7cac9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619892 |
On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 09:26:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > > >> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your > >> rather short text? > > > > Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent. > > And that's been proven. > > > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. Science is not what it pretends to be. Every institution pretends to be better, more honest and more noble than it really is, no matter whether it's a churrch, political party, FIFA or - science. > Unfortunately I dodn't know this and assumed, that science would be a > fair game. You've assumed incorrectly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 23:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vRadnUuIFMuUb2b5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #619892 |
[The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I am responding.] On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. > I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of > participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this > topic. That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how physicists behave. When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept that FACT that you have not. > So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe > what you are told. Period. More nonsense. Period. Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 22:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7dfb8c3-d872-41e1-a74e-23f548cbaed1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619937 |
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 06:18:28 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I > am responding.] > On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of Aren't we FORCED? To THE BEST Way? > Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would > necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires > a new experiment No, trash. The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent, you've got a proof, the only thing you can do about it is pretending you didn't notice, so your fellow idiots, as expected from a bunch of clowns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-09 07:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <km2fr1F4iv6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #619937 |
Am 09.09.2023 um 06:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: > [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I > am responding.] > > On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > > That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of > errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. > >> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of >> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. > > That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how > physicists behave. > > When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that > have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that > completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring > them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of > you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely > fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept > that FACT that you have not. > >> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what >> you are told. Period. > > More nonsense. Period. > > Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would > necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires > a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. > It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to relativity. I was looking on 'technical' issues alone. E.g. I was looking for equivalence of a setting with the equation, which describes this setting. So, I have analysed, what Einstein wrote in words and whether or not the subsequent derivation of a mathematical description would match this setting. This was, unfortunately not always the case. Also really bad were certain habits, like to reuse variables, use generic variables for specific purposes, change the type of variables without notice or giving no hints in form of signs like e.g. different font for different types of mathematical objects. Also inconsistencies like defining names one way, but using actually another, was criticised. And I don't really see, how you could possibly defend any of these issues. Actually you didn't even try and mentioned alleged errors on my side, but didn't show any of them at all. This is actually my experience all the time and since roughly twenty years in this forum. It is simply impossible to discuss issues in Einstein's paper. MANY did that, like e.g. Androcles. But NOTHING has changed and most likely never will. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da2724bf-e78c-47b3-8c1f-9febc6343995n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619942 |
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 07:57:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.09.2023 um 06:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: > > [The subject of this thread is as much a fantasy as the post to which I > > am responding.] > > > > On 9/8/23 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > > > > That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of > > errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. > > > >> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of > >> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. > > > > That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how > > physicists behave. > > > > When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that > > have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that > > completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring > > them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of > > you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely > > fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept > > that FACT that you have not. > > > >> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what > >> you are told. Period. > > > > More nonsense. Period. > > > > Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would > > necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires > > a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. > > > It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. > > I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to > relativity. > > I was looking on 'technical' issues alone. It's your mistake treating fanatic shit seriously. You're legitimizing it this way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 07:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <km524fFh3ppU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #619943 |
Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. >>> Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from the scientific community. There seems to exist a hidden law, which only applies to physicists. It demands, that certain activities must not be done. Certain topics are apperently illegal, like growing Earth abiogenic oil theory free energy devices gyroscopes transmutation certain aspects of water any kind of criticism about SRT and/or Einstein as a person >>> That is complete and utter nonsense. Ditto for the "hundreds of >>> errors" you fantasize that Einstein made in his 1905 paper. >>> >>>> I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of >>>> participants in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic. >>> >>> That's because you have no understanding of either physics or how >>> physicists behave. >>> >>> When fools and idiots claim to have "refuted SR" with arguments that >>> have been disproven dozens of times over the past century, or that >>> completely misrepresent the theory, we are fully justified in ignoring >>> them. That includes you and all the other cranks around here -- NONE of >>> you have ever presented any real argument against SR, you merely >>> fantasize that you do so, and are too ignorant and arrogant to accept >>> that FACT that you have not. >>> >>>> So: you cannot correct SRT, because you are requested to believe what >>>> you are told. Period. >>> >>> More nonsense. Period. >>> >>> Physicists would celebrate any actual refutation of SR, because it would >>> necessarily teach us something new and VERY interesting -- that requires >>> a new experiment, and posting nonsense around here simply cannot do it. >>> >> It is and was not my aim to refute SRT, which I actually regard as correct. >> >> I had a totally different approach, which is actually not related to >> relativity. >> >> I was looking on 'technical' issues alone. > > It's your mistake treating fanatic shit seriously. > You're legitimizing it this way. > Einstein's paper was published in a scientific magazine, hence was at least meant scientific. Well, possibly the author had other intentions, but at least I thought, that particular paper was meant as serious science. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-09 22:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9833b04d-cf6b-4ffb-92d0-3c87d5e2bcfan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619994 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > >>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > >>> > Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the > electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from > the scientific community. Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 08:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <km54b9FhdujU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #619996 |
Am 10.09.2023 um 07:45 schrieb Paul Alsing: > On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >> >>>>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. >>>>> >> Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from >> the scientific community. > > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down. > Very prominent was Herbert Dingle, who was a physicist with some reputation. But after his book 'Science at the crossroads' had got efficiently expelled 'from the community'. I do not want to defend Dingle or his work, but wanted to mention his name. Actually I had chose a different approach (because of Dingle) and did not discuss relativity per se, but only 'technical' (formal) issues, like missing quotes or mathematical errors in this particular article. (What Einstein said elsewhere or actually wanted was not my concern.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91ffa57f-48a5-4e8c-8863-8f1b064db69dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619996 |
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: <snip> > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down. Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid. 1- Halton Arp, PhD 2- Franklin Anariba, PhD 3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD 4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS 5- Hermann Weyl, PhD 6- Regind T. Cahill, MS 7- Wallace Thornhill, MS 8- David Talbott, PhD 9- Donald Scott, PhD 10- Ben Davidson, PhD 11- Jerry Pollack, PhD 12- Michael Clarage, PhD 13- Lowell Morgan, PhD 14- Paul Anderson, PhD 15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD 16- Michael Shermer, PhD 17- C.J. Ransom, PhD 18- Stephens Crothers, MS 18- Franklin Anariba, PhD 19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD 20- Robert Straitt, PhD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bbeb564-c710-456a-beda-66267fe008c0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620062 |
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: > > <snip> > > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down. > Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid. > > > 1- Halton Arp, PhD > 2- Franklin Anariba, PhD > 3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD > 4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS > 5- Hermann Weyl, PhD > 6- Regind T. Cahill, MS > 7- Wallace Thornhill, MS > 8- David Talbott, PhD > 9- Donald Scott, PhD > 10- Ben Davidson, PhD > 11- Jerry Pollack, PhD > 12- Michael Clarage, PhD > 13- Lowell Morgan, PhD > 14- Paul Anderson, PhD > 15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD > 16- Michael Shermer, PhD > 17- C.J. Ransom, PhD > 18- Stephens Crothers, MS > 18- Franklin Anariba, PhD > 19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD > 20- Robert Straitt, PhD Listen, Dick, you ignoramus, you snipped the most important part of the thread, the part where Crossen made this claim..."Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from the scientific community"... and I asked him to name one or two of them. So, Dick, you are claiming that all of these fine folks have all been fired and permanently banned from the scientific community? I knew Chip Arp way back when and he was clearly never fired or banned from the scientific community! I think we all know just who the cretinoid here is, Dick... and it is not likely to be me!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7431ff5f-a3f5-4ee2-abff-a1041ca03fa3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620063 |
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:22:49 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: <snip> > So, Dick, you are claiming that all of these fine folks have all been fired and permanently banned from the scientific community? I knew Chip Arp way back when and he was clearly never fired or banned from the scientific community! > > I think we all know just who the cretinoid here is, Dick... and it is not likely to be me! You MAYBE knew Arp by seeing him at a distance, and maybe you waved hands at him. But you are not only a fucking cretin, liar and deceiver. You also are a fucking imbecile! The history of Halton Arp is widely known, in detail. His last line of research put SERIOUS QUESTIONS to the entire body of cosmology based on the BB. The conflict between "allegedly" infinitely far quasars with high z BEING ACTUALLY close to galaxies with low z KILLED the entire LCDM narrative, as well as the alleged truth of Hubble's historical concepts about red/blue shift and distances. He fell from being a widely recognized astronomer with UNLIMITED ACCESS to Mount Palomar to Mr. NOBODY, with access denied (slowly but lethal). Why had he to finish his professional life at Planck Institute, being even there slowly cancelled? I insist: You are a decrepit liar, deceiver relativist SOB. *********************************************************************** https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905 Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science Paperback – June 1, 1997 by Halton Arp (Author) Review This book lays down a lifetime of seeing the world differently, looking at alternative explanations for a complex, beautiful universe. -- Sky & Telescope, June 1999 About the Author Halton Arp graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. from Caltech in 1953 (also cum laude). His first postdoctoral position was as an assistant to Edwin Hubble. He worked as a staff astronomer at Mt. Wilson and Mt. Palomar for 29 years before moving to Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Munich. Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies are world-renowned. He is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1963: a collectors' item), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals. He has been awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983. In 1984, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. SOME COMMENTS IN THE AMAZON'S LINK THAT I'VE POSTED ABOVE ********************************** If you believe the mainstream view of the universe, and want to continue believing in it, this is not the book for you. Quasars (quasi-stellar objects) have a high redshift - which astronomers have assumed is solely a Doppler effect and meant that quasars are receding from us at a fantastically high velocity. Halton Arp - whose credentials were good enough that he was at one time the assistant of Hubble himself - had the audacity to question that. This book is one of several that shows clearly that quasars often appear in front of low-redshift galaxies. Mainstream astronomy has built its whole house of cards on theory, starting with Einstein's theories of relatively, and it was using quasars to claim that the universe is rapidly expanding. As it turns out, based on the work of plasma physics, high redshift can also be a sign of the youth of an object. So they blackballed Arp. He could not get telescope time anywhere in the USA. He had to leave the country to get access to a telescope, and actually ended up with an even better telescope than he'd had before, where he was able to continue his work. And by the way, Einstein ended up doubting his own relativity theories, and Hubble remained unconvinced that redshift was completely explained as a Doppler effect. By today, one would not be able to practice astronomy unless they accept the Big Bang, Black Holes, thermo-nuclear stars, and an expanding universe. ********************************** I am a research chemist who has been skeptical for many years about the current dogma that the universe originated suddenly billions of years ago with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. In order to maintain the now widely accepted Big Bang/expanding universe theory in the face of various discoveries which conflict with it astronomers and cosmologists have repeatedly promulgated various ad hoc -- but unproven -- concepts, including the existence of cold dark matter and dark energy. In this book eminent astronomer Halton Arp presents an alternative view of cosmology, based on his own astronomical observations, which roundly challenges the currently accepted dogma. Arp has been severely ridiculed for his challenge of currently accepted theory and has been denied access to prestigious journals and conferences, but he has also developed a following of iconoclastic scientists who now give his assertions serious consideration. If you are open minded, you may well find this book both interesting and informative. ********************************** One solution to Einstein's General Theory calls for the universe to be expanding. Shortly after Einstein published it, Hubble published observations that purported to support Einstein by showing that stars farther away from Earth were moving away faster, as shown by their red shift. Arp questions the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity. The book includes astronomical photos of objects that are obviously connected by streams of gas, but which have vastly different red shifts. At the very least, this puts into question the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity. Well worth reading. **********************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-11 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab473ab4-6685-4d7a-a963-2284e177f77cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620082 |
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:22:49 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: > > <snip> > > So, Dick, you are claiming that all of these fine folks have all been fired and permanently banned from the scientific community? I knew Chip Arp way back when and he was clearly never fired or banned from the scientific community! > > > > I think we all know just who the cretinoid here is, Dick... and it is not likely to be me! > You MAYBE knew Arp by seeing him at a distance, and maybe you waved hands at him. > > But you are not only a fucking cretin, liar and deceiver. You also are a fucking imbecile! > > The history of Halton Arp is widely known, in detail. > > His last line of research put SERIOUS QUESTIONS to the entire body of cosmology based on the BB. The conflict between > "allegedly" infinitely far quasars with high z BEING ACTUALLY close to galaxies with low z KILLED the entire LCDM narrative, > as well as the alleged truth of Hubble's historical concepts about red/blue shift and distances. > > He fell from being a widely recognized astronomer with UNLIMITED ACCESS to Mount Palomar to Mr. NOBODY, with access > denied (slowly but lethal). Why had he to finish his professional life at Planck Institute, being even there slowly cancelled? > > I insist: You are a decrepit liar, deceiver relativist SOB. > > > *********************************************************************** > https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905 > > Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science Paperback – June 1, 1997 > by Halton Arp (Author) > > Review > This book lays down a lifetime of seeing the world differently, looking at alternative explanations for a complex, beautiful universe. -- Sky & Telescope, June 1999 > > About the Author > Halton Arp graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. from Caltech in 1953 (also cum laude). His first postdoctoral position was as an assistant to Edwin Hubble. He worked as a staff astronomer at Mt. Wilson and Mt. Palomar for 29 years before moving to Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Munich. > Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies are world-renowned. He is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1963: a collectors' item), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals. He has been awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983. In 1984, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. > > > > SOME COMMENTS IN THE AMAZON'S LINK THAT I'VE POSTED ABOVE > > ********************************** > If you believe the mainstream view of the universe, and want to continue believing in it, this is not the book for you. Quasars (quasi-stellar objects) have a high redshift - which astronomers have assumed is solely a Doppler effect and meant that quasars are receding from us at a fantastically high velocity. Halton Arp - whose credentials were good enough that he was at one time the assistant of Hubble himself - had the audacity to question that. This book is one of several that shows clearly that quasars often appear in front of low-redshift galaxies. Mainstream astronomy has built its whole house of cards on theory, starting with Einstein's theories of relatively, and it was using quasars to claim that the universe is rapidly expanding. As it turns out, based on the work of plasma physics, high redshift can also be a sign of the youth of an object. So they blackballed Arp. He could not get telescope time anywhere in the USA. He had to leave the country to get access to a telescope, and actually ended up with an even better telescope than he'd had before, where he was able to continue his work. And by the way, Einstein ended up doubting his own relativity theories, and Hubble remained unconvinced that redshift was completely explained as a Doppler effect. By today, one would not be able to practice astronomy unless they accept the Big Bang, Black Holes, thermo-nuclear stars, and an expanding universe. > > ********************************** > > I am a research chemist who has been skeptical for many years about the current dogma that the universe originated suddenly billions of years ago with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. In order to maintain the now widely accepted Big Bang/expanding universe theory in the face of various discoveries which conflict with it astronomers and cosmologists have repeatedly promulgated various ad hoc -- but unproven -- concepts, including the existence of cold dark matter and dark energy. In this book eminent astronomer Halton Arp presents an alternative view of cosmology, based on his own astronomical observations, which roundly challenges the currently accepted dogma. Arp has been severely ridiculed for his challenge of currently accepted theory and has been denied access to prestigious journals and conferences, but he has also developed a following of iconoclastic scientists who now give his assertions serious consideration. If you are open minded, you may well find this book both interesting and informative. > > ********************************** > > One solution to Einstein's General Theory calls for the universe to be expanding. Shortly after Einstein published it, Hubble published observations that purported to support Einstein by showing that stars farther away from Earth were moving away faster, as shown by their red shift. > > Arp questions the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity. The book includes astronomical photos of objects that are obviously connected by streams of gas, but which have vastly different red shifts. At the very least, this puts into question the validity of red shift as a measure of distance or recessional velocity. > > Well worth reading. > > ********************************** You failed to answer my question, Dick, about all those people on your list... I would like you to back up your claim with evidence, if you have any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-16 01:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adafaf92-77cd-445f-9de6-31f779e8d808n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620062 |
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: > > <snip> > > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down. > Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid. > > > 1- Halton Arp, PhD > 2- Franklin Anariba, PhD > 3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD > 4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS > 5- Hermann Weyl, PhD > 6- Regind T. Cahill, MS > 7- Wallace Thornhill, MS > 8- David Talbott, PhD > 9- Donald Scott, PhD > 10- Ben Davidson, PhD > 11- Jerry Pollack, PhD > 12- Michael Clarage, PhD > 13- Lowell Morgan, PhD > 14- Paul Anderson, PhD > 15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD > 16- Michael Shermer, PhD > 17- C.J. Ransom, PhD > 18- Stephens Crothers, MS > 18- Franklin Anariba, PhD > 19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD > 20- Robert Straitt, PhD The only way to disprove SR is by experiment (and even then the theory will never go away, just like Maxwell's electrodynamics and Newtonian mechanics, both of which have been falsified by experiment). The 20 people you listed above either make mathematical mistakes (like Stephen Crothers) or argue philosophical aspects of relativity (which is fine with me). Logically or mathematically they cannot have a claim (because demonstrating a logical flaw in Minkowski's geometry would automatically demonstrate a corresponding flaw in Euclidean geometry). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-16 01:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e163b1ff-56d2-4672-8f9c-cda0792bc708n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #620361 |
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 10:08:37 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... and in any case, none of them have actually succeeded in their effort to bring Einstein down. > > Here you have 20, not 2, cretinoid. > > > > > > 1- Halton Arp, PhD > > 2- Franklin Anariba, PhD > > 3- Nikias Stavroulakis, PhD > > 4- Leonard S. Abrams, MS > > 5- Hermann Weyl, PhD > > 6- Regind T. Cahill, MS > > 7- Wallace Thornhill, MS > > 8- David Talbott, PhD > > 9- Donald Scott, PhD > > 10- Ben Davidson, PhD > > 11- Jerry Pollack, PhD > > 12- Michael Clarage, PhD > > 13- Lowell Morgan, PhD > > 14- Paul Anderson, PhD > > 15- Kongpop U-yen, PhD > > 16- Michael Shermer, PhD > > 17- C.J. Ransom, PhD > > 18- Stephens Crothers, MS > > 18- Franklin Anariba, PhD > > 19- Eugene Bagashov, PhD > > 20- Robert Straitt, PhD > The only way to disprove SR is by experiment (and even then the Sure, we need to perform an experiment to disprove that "we re FORCED to THE BEST WAY". No, trash - we don't need it, as your Shit is not even consistent. Not that such idiocies need ANY disprovement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-10 22:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36d811b7-3199-4235-9f1a-42ae0921166fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619996 |
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 07:45:25 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:22:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 09.09.2023 um 08:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > > > >>>> It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. > > >>> > > Thjat's what I actually think: physicists who dare to criticise 'On the > > electrodynamics of moving bodies' get fired and permanently banned from > > the scientific community. > Can you name one or two of them? Do you have any evidence of any kind to support your claim? I'm pretty confident that the number of legitimate physicists the world around who doubt Einstein is minuscule when compared to the size of that community... Al, poor trash, that's what he saying - those who dare criticizing your insane Shit can'r be a part of your insane community.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-16 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6482b2ff-5581-481d-9236-2d0435c0a22bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619892 |
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:26:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > > >> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your > >> rather short text? > > > > Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent. > > And that's been proven. > > > It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT. Don't be silly. Of course it's perfectly legal and encouraged. But that's not what you are doing. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-16 01:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bcc7ce6-815c-4a2d-a7d6-d0207e0703e0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619276 |
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:34:13 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 26.08.2023 um 23:12 schrieb JanPB: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney: > >> > >>>> > >>>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors > >>>> of concept. > >>> > >>> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text. > >> I think, the text is FULL of errors. > >> > >> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400). > > > > No, it's zero. It would be good for you to stop living in > > a fantasy world. It's emotionally neither healthy not, ultimately, > > satisfying. One day you'll wake up with your hand in the chamber pot. > Well, I found about 420 parts of the text 'On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies' which I have annoated. > > These are not all errors, but also remarks about something important or > what I had to rethink. > > But most were about erros There are no errors in Einstein's paper. Grow up, stop fantasising. You are an adult now. There is no longer any need for you to employ an emotional crutch, let alone a silly one like this. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dourglas Mukaseev <glva@rlauaoks.rl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-16 09:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ue3s9t$3oucv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #620359 |
JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:34:13 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> But most were about erros > > There are no errors in Einstein's paper. Grow up, stop fantasising. > You are an adult now. There is no longer any need for you to employ an > emotional crutch, let alone a silly one like this. I disagree. These comes in versions. You just display your ignorance. You never read a paper written by a Chinese. unbelievable incredible, 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 flushes the toilet with capitalist funny 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 america, again. 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_“𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿”_𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁_𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻,_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗩𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗱𝘆𝗺𝘆𝗿_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 https://archive.ph/LsGEy https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/09/10/donald-trump-will-never-support-putin-says-volodymyr-zelensky Trump would “never” support Vladimir Putin. “That isn’t what strong Americans do.” He expects Joe Biden will stay the course if he is re-elected. (“𝗗𝗼_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁_𝗔𝗳𝗴𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻,_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁_𝘁𝘄𝗼?”)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4edfecdc-84fd-4596-ae44-97c6d2e5fd83n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618683 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit : > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> > >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing > >> > >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > >> > >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. > > > > You've found zero errors. > > > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings. > > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or > > to give up on this entirely and do something else. > > > > -- > > Jan > > There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of > concept. There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana. > For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz > transformations". > > But these are not coordinates. Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics). > x, y, z, ARE coordinates. > > t is not a coordinate. It is. > t, and more precisely To in Hachel writing, is the norm of a simple > hypotenuse and not a coordinate in an orthonormal frame. Word salad. > The components of the Lorentz transformations (x,y;z,To) are not > orthonormal frame coordinates. They are in a certain sense (the _word_ orthonormal refers to a certain property of those quantities). Again, my advice is for you to learn the subject before you attempt to "fix" it. You are like someone who wants to learn playing piano and you start by trying to play the 3rd movement of Beethiven's "Moonlight" sonata. It will never work, after all the time you spend on it, you'll end up with nothing. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9eec8eab-d556-43e7-a29a-56b47d29f689n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618776 |
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 20:07:04 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 23/08/2023 à 09:53, JanPB a écrit : > > > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:19:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > >> > > >> I have spent a lot of time on analysing > > >> > > >> 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > > >> > > >> And I have found about four-hundred errors in it. > > > > > > You've found zero errors. > > > > > > What you call "errors" are just your misunderstandings. > > > The solution to your problem is either to learn physics or > > > to give up on this entirely and do something else. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors of > > concept. > There are none. Stop wasting time chasing a fata morgana. > > For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in Lorentz > > transformations". > > > > But these are not coordinates. > Yes, they are. Learn the relevant physics (and mathematics). And speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind that your idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very importamt part false, as it didn't want to fit his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web