1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • Re: The Scream of The Injured Relativist.

    From patdolan@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 23 19:37:28 2023
    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'
    Let me be the first to honor this classic post with my response. Genius!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 24 02:25:48 2023
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack
    pot.....'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 23 22:06:31 2023
    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Gobbledygook. You are losing it.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 23 22:38:46 2023
    A true relativist can't be really injured, his skull
    is to thick for that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 04:46:30 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon Apr 24 04:49:34 2023
    On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:46:31 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'
    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?

    It's quite easy to lie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon Apr 24 10:35:36 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:46:31 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?

    It's not easy even to a mathematician if you want a solid proof.
    The actual statement is not that it's free of contradictions but that
    IF it does contain an internal contradiction, THEN so does the
    Euclidean geometry, and vice-versa.

    We also don't know whether certain basic axiomatic systems, like
    the NBG in set theory, are consistent.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Apr 24 10:50:00 2023
    On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 19:35:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:46:31 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?
    It's not easy even to a mathematician if you want a solid proof.
    The actual statement is not that it's free of contradictions but that
    IF it does contain an internal contradiction, THEN so does the
    Euclidean geometry, and vice-versa.

    A lie, of course, as expected from relativistic trash.
    The actual statement is that if "mathematics behind it"
    does contain [etc]
    Having some valid mathematic inside doesn't prevent
    The Shit from being inconsistent, as it was proven many
    times here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 24 17:53:23 2023
    Le 24/04/2023 à 04:25, Jane a écrit :
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Absolutly.

    And I'm not talking to you about the cries of piglets slaughtered in
    religion, if you say that the mother of Jesus was not really called Mary,
    but Elisabeth; and that his father was not Joseph, but Zechariah.

    C'est absolument fantastique.

    Il n'y a rien de plus grandiose et de plus arrogant que la connerie des
    hommes quand ils sont convaincus d'avoir raison, et qu'ils ne veulent absolument pas discuter des choses qu'ils croient connaitre.

    They say : Crackpot, troll, idiot, heretic, etc...

    Absolutly.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Apr 24 11:08:49 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:53:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/04/2023 à 04:25, Jane a écrit :
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'
    Absolutly.

    And I'm not talking to you about the cries of piglets slaughtered in religion, if you say that the mother of Jesus was not really called Mary, but Elisabeth; and that his father was not Joseph, but Zechariah.

    C'est absolument fantastique.

    Il n'y a rien de plus grandiose et de plus arrogant que la connerie des hommes quand ils sont convaincus d'avoir raison, et qu'ils ne veulent absolument pas discuter des choses qu'ils croient connaitre.

    They say : Crackpot, troll, idiot, heretic, etc...

    Yes. And for a reason. The problem you have is that you cannot understand
    why you are wrong.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 24 18:14:36 2023
    Le 24/04/2023 à 20:08, JanPB a écrit :
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:53:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/04/2023 à 04:25, Jane a écrit :
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack
    pot.....'
    Absolutly.

    And I'm not talking to you about the cries of piglets slaughtered in
    religion, if you say that the mother of Jesus was not really called Mary,
    but Elisabeth; and that his father was not Joseph, but Zechariah.

    C'est absolument fantastique.

    Il n'y a rien de plus grandiose et de plus arrogant que la connerie des
    hommes quand ils sont convaincus d'avoir raison, et qu'ils ne veulent
    absolument pas discuter des choses qu'ils croient connaitre.

    They say : Crackpot, troll, idiot, heretic, etc...

    Yes. And for a reason. The problem you have is that you cannot understand
    why you are wrong.

    The reverse is true.

    The problem is that other men seem unable to understand why I can only be right.

    They say I'm fat, dumb, arrogant.

    But none have ever risen to my level of understanding of SR.

    So obviously, it's very easy to despise and insult absolutely without
    knowing.

    What they despise or insult they do not know.

    And that is unheard of in the history of mankind.

    --
    Jan

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Apr 24 12:21:00 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 11:14:39 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/04/2023 à 20:08, JanPB a écrit :
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:53:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/04/2023 à 04:25, Jane a écrit :
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that >> > goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack
    pot.....'
    Absolutly.

    And I'm not talking to you about the cries of piglets slaughtered in
    religion, if you say that the mother of Jesus was not really called Mary, >> but Elisabeth; and that his father was not Joseph, but Zechariah.

    C'est absolument fantastique.

    Il n'y a rien de plus grandiose et de plus arrogant que la connerie des >> hommes quand ils sont convaincus d'avoir raison, et qu'ils ne veulent
    absolument pas discuter des choses qu'ils croient connaitre.

    They say : Crackpot, troll, idiot, heretic, etc...

    Yes. And for a reason. The problem you have is that you cannot understand why you are wrong.
    The reverse is true.

    No. This is non-debatable.

    When you say that 2+2=5 (which is what you say), then there can be no debate. Period.
    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 24 19:38:40 2023
    Le 24/04/2023 à 21:21, JanPB a écrit :

    When you say that 2+2=5

    The reverse is true.

    If we take for example: the fact that (in the Langevin example) nine
    multiplied by four is thirty-six, it is I who is right.

    I am told no.

    And I am told: "9*4=7.2"

    This is what has been happening for years.

    And I'm told: "You don't know 2+2=4".

    It's absurd.


    Jan

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand on Mon Apr 24 21:55:19 2023
    M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
    ...
    And I am told: "9*4=7.2"

    This. is. plain. lie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Mon Apr 24 16:12:05 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 24/04/2023 à 21:21, JanPB a écrit :

    When you say that 2+2=5
    The reverse is true.

    No. This is not open to debate.

    If we take for example: the fact that (in the Langevin example) nine multiplied by four is thirty-six, it is I who is right.

    You doin't understand the problem. Pick a different hobby.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 25 00:10:25 2023
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:25:48 +0000, Jane wrote:

    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic emits a monotonous,
    repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack
    pot.....quack pot.....quack...pot.....'





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 20:27:46 2023
    On 4/24/2023 8:10 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:25:48 +0000, Jane wrote:

    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic emits a monotonous,
    repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack
    pot.....quack pot.....quack...pot.....'

    No need to talk about yourself like that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 17:43:03 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:10:28 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:25:48 +0000, Jane wrote:

    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic emits a monotonous,
    repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack
    pot.....quack pot.....quack...pot.....'

    Again, mental gobbledygook.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Apr 24 18:54:45 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:35:38 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:46:31 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?
    It's not easy even to a mathematician if you want a solid proof.
    The actual statement is not that it's free of contradictions but that
    IF it does contain an internal contradiction, THEN so does the
    Euclidean geometry, and vice-versa.

    We also don't know whether certain basic axiomatic systems, like
    the NBG in set theory, are consistent.

    --
    Jan

    You are missing the case where Euclidean geometry contains no internal contradictions, but SRT does.

    That claim can be made, however, and it is interesting to ask, by what method will I be convinced?

    For me, it is mathematics and reason. Asking me to believe reality works in a certain way is simply asking me to commit to a belief.

    Before you criticize me, Einstein took the view that "God does not play dice with the universe". Is this a scientific view or a basis for a scientific view?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Apr 24 19:46:24 2023
    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:06:33 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'
    Gobbledygook. You are losing it.

    You never had it jan. You just took a course...
    and likes to pretend that nothing is wrong where
    it is clearly shown to be. By denying the wrong
    you can claim you are right.


    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon Apr 24 20:50:56 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:54:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:35:38 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:46:31 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?
    It's not easy even to a mathematician if you want a solid proof.
    The actual statement is not that it's free of contradictions but that
    IF it does contain an internal contradiction, THEN so does the
    Euclidean geometry, and vice-versa.

    We also don't know whether certain basic axiomatic systems, like
    the NBG in set theory, are consistent.

    --
    Jan
    You are missing the case where Euclidean geometry contains no internal contradictions, but SRT does.

    No, I'm not missing any "case". What I said was simply a mathematical
    theorem: if there is an _internal_ contradiction within SR, then there is
    a corresponding one within Euclidean geometry.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Apr 24 21:50:53 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 05:50:57 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:54:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:35:38 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:46:31 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:25:52 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic a repetitive groan that
    goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack pot.....quack pot.....quack pot.....'

    Why is this? Is it so difficult to explain to a person on the street that Special Relativity is without contradictions ?
    It's not easy even to a mathematician if you want a solid proof.
    The actual statement is not that it's free of contradictions but that
    IF it does contain an internal contradiction, THEN so does the
    Euclidean geometry, and vice-versa.

    We also don't know whether certain basic axiomatic systems, like
    the NBG in set theory, are consistent.

    --
    Jan
    You are missing the case where Euclidean geometry contains no internal contradictions, but SRT does.
    No, I'm not missing any "case". What I said was simply a mathematical theorem: if there is an _internal_ contradiction within SR, then there is
    a corresponding one within Euclidean geometry.

    No,trash, you're lying, there is no such mathematical
    theorem. "SR" is not a term of any mathematical
    theory.
    Pythagorean theorem, on the other hand - is a
    mathematical theorem, and it didn't prevent
    your bunch of idiots from announcing it false.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Apr 26 16:54:30 2023
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:43:03 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:10:28 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 02:25:48 +0000, Jane wrote:

    When cornered, this bumbling, sheep-like relic emits a monotonous,
    repetitive groan that goes something like 'quack-pot.... quack
    pot.....quack pot.....quack...pot.....'

    Again, mental gobbledygook.

    Sometimes it emits a more comprehensive noise like:

    Quack....gobblegobbledy..gook..cookfite..Quack..gobblegobbledy..gook..cookfite..Quack..gobblegobbledy..gook..cookfite..Quack..gobblegobbledy..gook..corkfite....

    .....a bit like a cross between a cuckoo, a duck and a turkey. I wonder if anyone has measured its intelligence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)