By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers
of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:15:24 AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
Intelligent people (professionals) live by their reputation among peers.
If there is a trend that take years to be developed, they have to adapt and follow the professional herd, or they will be labeled as weird,
eccentric, neurotic or similar.
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:09:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Yes, that's standard.
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers
of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:09:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:person, there are hundreds of them driving the wrong way"...
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So, Crossen is driving home one day, on the freeway. His wife calls his cell phone and tells him to be careful because she heard on the news that there was someone out there driving the wrong way on that freeway... and he says... "there is not just one
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:09:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
Yes, that's standard. The other obligatory term used by cranks in
this context is "regurgitate", as in: "physicists only regurgitate what they've been taught", this is supposed to prove the superiority of ignorance.
We had a guy here once who claimed that because he could not do
any mathematics, it made his physics intuition superior to that of professional physicists.
Those people are characters straight from Monty Python sketches.
On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 08:09:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
"brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers
of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
Mere facts, stupid Mike.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:15:24 AM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:It is often pointed out that key advances are often made either by people who are so successful they can afford risks (e.g. Norman Lockyer solar physicist pioneering archaeoastronomy) or by people lacking accomplishments having little to risk.
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.Intelligent people (professionals) live by their reputation among peers.
If there is a trend that take years to be developed, they have to adapt and follow the professional herd, or they will be labeled as weird,
eccentric, neurotic or similar.
If, in 2023, a professional persist in using a 2G phone without any app (SMS is part of 2G), and reject any social media app, will be
labeled as told. So, they have to get a smartphone and accept selfies, even when he does not use current apps. They have to survive.
If, in 2023, any professional active in the field of physics or astronomy let know that he rejects relativity, is done within peers that have
been assimilated by the trend.
At any case, such person thinks that he have to survive within peers, even when he's waiting being retired to canalize all his hate on the
matter by writing a blog or similar. Now, he's safe as no retaliations will affect him.
He was not indoctrinated in any way. He only pretended to, so he protected his sources of incomes and privileges.
A similar thing with anyone (Volney) waiting to come out of the closet. Most will do close to retirement. He pretended to be straight:
wife, kids, etc. But once he feel safe of repudiation, will come out with dancing colors.
Same with FAKE RELATIVISTS (more than 90%). Nothing to lose pretending, but much to gain.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:09:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:person, there are hundreds of them driving the wrong way"...
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So, Crossen is driving home one day, on the freeway. His wife calls his cell phone and tells him to be careful because she heard on the news that there was someone out there driving the wrong way on that freeway... and he says... "there is not just one
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
--
Jan
On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 16:00:42 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:one person, there are hundreds of them driving the wrong way"...
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:09:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So, Crossen is driving home one day, on the freeway. His wife calls his cell phone and tells him to be careful because she heard on the news that there was someone out there driving the wrong way on that freeway... and he says... "there is not just
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
"brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers >>> of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
Hundreds of stupid cranks ignoring the one and only
correct way (even if inconsistent a little bit) shown us
by Giant Guru and his obedient minion Al
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
--
Jan
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
--Einstein knew man would have to wait on the scientific unified field.
Jan
That is the far future of math and science. Einstein said he did not
find it... only that it was his dream...
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
--
Jan
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:35:25 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
It's not really known whether the better theory should be field theory--Einstein knew man would have to wait on the scientific unified field.
Jan
That is the far future of math and science. Einstein said he did not
find it... only that it was his dream...
or something perhaps lattice-based or something yet different.
Field theory would be nice because it's easier to work with continuous and infinitely divisible structures but life usually intrudes upon such
idyllic scenarios.
--
Jan
On 8/25/2023 2:14 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 08:09:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
"brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers >> of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
Mere facts, stupid Mike.
It would be nice if you supplied more facts for your claims.
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists?
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
Sylvia.
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?Are YOU? Probability says you are NOT :-))
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 17:19:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
Are YOU? Probability says you are NOT :-))
No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says
he's probably not.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 17:19:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:59:17 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
Are YOU? Probability says you are NOT :-))
No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only saysFour nines certainty is good enough for me.
he's probably not.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
Sylvia."the vast majority of physicists" are lemmings and cranks and cooks.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
Sylvia.It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then.
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says
he's probably not.
Four nines certainty is good enough for me.
A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says
he's probably not.
Four nines certainty is good enough for me.
A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much.Apparently, half-brain Wozzy would work for a shyster that only gave one chance
in 10000 that he would get paid :-))
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 23:12:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:00:22 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
No, poor halfbrain, it doesn't. It only says
he's probably not.
Four nines certainty is good enough for me.
A relativistic idiot certainly doesn't need much.
Apparently, half-brain Wozzy would work for a shyster that only gave one chance
in 10000 that he would get paid :-))
Apparently , relativistic trash is spitting and slandering,
as expected from relativistic trash.
On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
makes a valid point.
I have two points to make which might help you.
1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can
come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that
field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes
the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you
are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you
_analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation
in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions
made in the theory of relativity.
I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot
help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they
do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned
above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not
that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you.
That's one point.
2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you
pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the
rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will
work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of
your own abilities.
You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because
it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd know you should pursue other fields.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
makes a valid point.
I have two points to make which might help you.
1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can
come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that
field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes
the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you
are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you
_analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation
in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions
made in the theory of relativity.
I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot
help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they
do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned
above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not
that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you.
That's one point.
2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you
pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the
rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will
work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of
your own abilities.
You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because
it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd know you should pursue other fields.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
makes a valid point.
I have two points to make which might help you.
1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can
come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that
field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes
the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you
are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you
_analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation
in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions
made in the theory of relativity.
I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot
help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they
do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned
above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not
that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you.
That's one point.
2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you
pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the
rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will
work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of
your own abilities.
You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because
it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd know you should pursue other fields.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
remark about "extraordinary proofs".
Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X.
The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is true and correct. Period."
What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?
It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".
The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an
explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal facility.
For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this
concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.
(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course
impossible on a text-based forum.)
--You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
Jan
Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas. Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
remark about "extraordinary proofs".
Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X.
The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is true and correct. Period."
What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?
It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".
The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal facility.
For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.
(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course impossible on a text-based forum.)
--
Jan
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his
remark about "extraordinary proofs".
Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X.
The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con.
Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is true and correct. Period."
What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?
It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".
The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an
explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal
facility.
For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this
concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.
(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course
impossible on a text-based forum.)
No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the--You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
Jan
past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately.
Just stating it is hot air.
Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as
Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were
abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you
twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to
dissect the obvious any further.
--
Jan
OR, he should stop asking why they eat smelly rotten fish.
Instead, post about facts that show that the smelly fish is rotten, instead of criticizing food habits of relativists.
Post one fact after another, along with consequences for the health of rotten fish eaters.
But don't criticize them for doing so. They've eaten rotten fish for so long that their immune system adapted to survive.
Relativists, in this way, have becoming mutants. They can't eat normal food.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:41:28 PM UTC-3, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 8/26/2023 2:24 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Star, let me borrow your post so I can respond to Crossen. Thanks. He
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
makes a valid point.
I have two points to make which might help you.
1. Reasoning to persuade you to give importance to a physics theory can
come in various ways. Sometimes it is directly comparing its predictions
with measurements in experiments. But that's for scientists in that
field, not the fresh students or scientists of other fields. Sometimes
the reasoning made is deriving the theory from other theories that you
are comfortable with. That, also, is for scientists. But sometimes, when
nothing else seems to have worked, one could at least bring you
_analogies_ from weirder assumptions made elsewhere in physics which you
have accepted without complaining, so that you could put the situation
in perspective and become more comfortable with the weird assumptions
made in the theory of relativity.
I forged through like two hours a couple of days back in
sci.physics.relativity to get a picture, and more or less saw what was
happening. You are asking your questions from individuals who cannot
help you. They know their relativity, but they cannot help you with your
questions in any way other than throwing the books at you. In fact, they
do not make any of the three forms of reasoning that I just mentioned
above. They may even be thinking they're helping you (if they're not
that bright - a few of them are plain stupid), but they're not helping you. >>
That's one point.
2. Second point is that, it's not their job to help you. You're alone in
this and all the work required is on you. Even in institutions where you
pay professors to help you, they never go all the 9 miles! Because the
rest of the job is on you :) If they spoon-feed you too much, it will
work against you in fact. It will leave holes in your understanding of
your own abilities.
You either find some way to convince yourself about this theory all by
yourself, or, you fail to do that, in which case no harm is done because
it means it was not a field that would work for you anyway, so now you'd
know you should pursue other fields.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
OR, he should stop asking why they eat smelly rotten fish.
Instead, post about facts that show that the smelly fish is rotten, instead of criticizing food habits of relativists.
Post one fact after another, along with consequences for the health of rotten fish eaters.
But don't criticize them for doing so. They've eaten rotten fish for so long that their immune system adapted to survive.
Relativists, in this way, have becoming mutants. They can't eat normal food.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if
it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can
contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then. >>
Sylvia.
It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then.
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if >>>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can >>>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then. >>>>
Sylvia.
It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the
endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made
relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with
Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then. >>>
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential
geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not
physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible
imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF
MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH
CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles
that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE
STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only
describe models that could represent the universe. It can describe many
such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes
physics to determine which model is the correct one.
Sylvia.
Not necessarily.
If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel
(3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite
similar.
But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it differs.
We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I
think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions
are the same.
Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR
equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that
they no longer understood anything.
In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what
he was talking about.
A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...
On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if >> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can >> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
Sylvia.
It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then.
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only describe
Le 27/08/2023 à 15:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2023-08-27 13:11:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists? Even if >>>>>> it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can >>>>>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case then.
Sylvia.
It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the >>>>> endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made
relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with >>>>> Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then. >>>>>
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential >>>>> geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS, not >>>>> physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible
imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF
MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH >>>>> CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles >>>>> that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE >>>>> STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only
describe models that could represent the universe. It can describe many >>>> such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes
physics to determine which model is the correct one.
Sylvia.
Not necessarily.
If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel
(3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite
similar.
But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it
differs.
We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I
think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions
are the same.
Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR
equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in
apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that
they no longer understood anything.
In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what
he was talking about.
A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...
So your humour, such as it is, rivals the level of stupidity of your
posts. Quelle surprise.
Oui, je sais, je suis magnifique.
El Magnifico.
En espagnol.
Tu parles espagnol, toi?
Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists?
Even if
it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can >>>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case
then.
Sylvia.
It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the
endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made
relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with
Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then. >>>
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential
geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS,
not physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible
imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF
MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH
CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles
that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE
STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only
describe models that could represent the universe. It can describe
many such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes
physics to determine which model is the correct one.
Sylvia.
Not necessarily.
If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel
(3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite similar. But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it differs.
We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I
think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions
are the same.
Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR
equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that
they no longer understood anything.
In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what he
was talking about.
A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...
R.H.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:This has already been gone into in detail as to why they would believe false ideas. Relativity functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes. It's obvious to the indoctrinated, not to the reasonable.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his
remark about "extraordinary proofs".
Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X.
The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con.
Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is true and correct. Period."
What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?
It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".
The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an
explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal
facility.
For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this
concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.
(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course
impossible on a text-based forum.)
No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the--You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
Jan
past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately.
Just stating it is hot air.
Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as
Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were
abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you
twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to
dissect the obvious any further.
--
Jan
On 27-Aug-23 11:11 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 27/08/2023 à 14:56, Sylvia Else a écrit :
On 26-Aug-23 11:59 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 25-Aug-23 1:15 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.Do you ever wonder how a theory proposed by a patent clerk in his
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
twenties came to be accepted by the vast majority of physicists?
Even if
it were true now that he is a supreme scientific figure whom no one can >>>> contradict (spoiler alert, it's not), it wouldn't have been the case >>>> then.
Sylvia.
It was not because of him and his lame 1905 paper. It was due to the
endorsement of Minkowski and his
mathematical formalism, following the lead of Poincaré, which made
relativity a "respectable" theory.
As one of the top mathematicians in Europe by that epoch (along with
Poincaré, Hilbert, Klein), HIS theory of
4D SPACETIME captured the imagination of respectable scientists by then. >>>
After the application of tensors, spacetime and absolute differential >>> geometry (Ricci, Levi-Civita, Grossman, Hilbert),
the scientific world HAD TO FOLLOW THE PROPOSALS OF MATHEMATICIANS,
not physicists.
Einstein was the ICON used to make it popular within gullible
imbeciles, with his stupid manipulation OF TIME.
All of a sudden, the populace started to think about NOT AGING IF
MOVING FAST. That was THE TICKET.
I wonder what happened with the companion mathematical effect: LENGTH >>> CONTRACTION. It didn't gain traction, but
TIME NON-LINEAR MANIPULATION was a winner (for the ignorant imbeciles >>> that followed it as relativists).
More stupid things happened in the last 150 years, because PEOPLE ARE >>> STUPID (99.99% of them).
Are you within the 0.01%?
What you seem to miss in the above is that mathematics can only
describe models that could represent the universe. It can describe
many such models, but is incapable of choosing between them. It takes
physics to determine which model is the correct one.
Sylvia.
Not necessarily.
If we take the geometry of Minkowski (4D universe) and that of Hachel (3DD+1 universe), we realize that at the start, things seem quite similar. But the more we progress in the concepts and the equations, the more it differs.
We then say to ourselves: the best is experimentation.
The problem is that as things stand now (but not for much longer, I
think, as the practice progresses) the basic equations and predictions
are the same.
Except that already, and we already had it as early as 1905, the RR equations are incoherent if we practice at observable speeds.
They therefore have no chance of being true. None.
We can therefore, just by theory, guillotine the RR.
I have long since asked physicists how they can describe a Langevin in apparent velocities. All of them replied that they couldn't, and that
they no longer understood anything.
In France recently, Professor Python tried to defame me.
The audience was very surprised to find that he didn't even know what he was talking about.
A humorous video was made (if you can read the French).
https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2289477/les-physiciens-veulent-interdiction-hachel-de-parler...
R.H.I see that you're adopting the standard crank practice of introducing non-standard abbreviations, which you do not define, and then proceeding
to use them in the apparent expectation that people will know what you mean.
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers
of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
Am 25.08.2023 um 08:09 schrieb Volney:
On 8/24/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers
of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
I had a dream how this works:
I dreamt of people, who where forced to do stupid things, which are
dangerous and annoying.
They had a choice:
a)reject the disgusting stuff and get expelled
b)do stupid things and obey and get promoted.
Now the newbies of kind b) get tasks, which are VERY annoying and hence
they would like to leave (what is prohibited) or to raise in the ranks.
Only the latter is an option, hence they swallow their disgust and anger
and run with the herd.
Once they are 'well done', they get promoted and are now ready to kick
those in the butt, who are new.
After practicing this enough and well, they get a promotion.
Now their new taks is to do nasty things like telling complete bullshit
to the public.
Once they succeede, they get promoted again and raise to the next level.
There they get an advertising agency, for instance, or a newspaper or
other means of mass manipulation and enough money to promote the
bullshit from the levels below.
Le 28/08/2023 à 02:17, Sylvia Else a écrit :
I see that you're adopting the standard crank practice of introducing non-standard abbreviations, which you do not define, and then proceeding to use them in the apparent expectation that people will know what you mean.
Sylvia.Sylvia, you are delightful, and I greatly appreciate your insightful
advice.
But I assure you that I do my best to:
1. never use abstract or ambiguous words.
2. use the same terms as the others when I think they are justified.
On 27-Aug-23 11:11 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:[]
I see that you're adopting the standard crank practice of introducing non-standard abbreviations, which you do not define, and then proceeding
to use them in the apparent expectation that people will know what you
mean.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
*commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not
exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his remark about "extraordinary proofs".
Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X.
The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con.
Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is
true and correct. Period."
What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?
It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".
The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain
anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an
explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal
facility.
For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this
concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.
(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course
impossible on a text-based forum.)
No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately. Just stating it is hot air.--You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
Jan
Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as
Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were
abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you
twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to
dissect the obvious any further.
--This has already been gone into in detail as to why they would believe false ideas. Relativity functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes. It's obvious to the indoctrinated, not to the reasonable.
Jan
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
By being indoctrinated in an ideology.
Why can't they defend that with reason?
Because they weren't persuaded by reason.No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.
Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.
You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim--argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
Jan
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.
The twain don't even come close.
This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)
You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".
Real life does not work that way.
If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.
So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)
They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing--All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
Jan
*commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not
exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his remark about "extraordinary proofs".
Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con.
Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is
true and correct. Period."
What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?
It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".
The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.
So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already
pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain
anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an
explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal
facility.
For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this
concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.
(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course
impossible on a text-based forum.)
No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately. Just stating it is hot air.--You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
Jan
Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as
Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were
abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you
twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to
dissect the obvious any further.
You are just repeating your claims. They are extraordinary (outlandish, requiring that entire generations of people around the planet and of--This has already been gone into in detail as to why they would believe false ideas. Relativity functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes. It's obvious to the indoctrinated, not to the reasonable.
Jan
various cultural etc. backgrounds were/are all idiots) without
commensurate proofs.
Crackpot evidence #2341: Claiming all physicists are "indoctrinated",
"brainwashed", followers of a "cult of relativity" or at least followers >>> of a "religion" worshiping Einstein.
I had a dream how this works:
I dreamt of people, who where forced to do stupid things, which are
dangerous and annoying.
They had a choice:
a)reject the disgusting stuff and get expelled
b)do stupid things and obey and get promoted.
Now the newbies of kind b) get tasks, which are VERY annoying and hence
they would like to leave (what is prohibited) or to raise in the ranks.
Only the latter is an option, hence they swallow their disgust and anger
and run with the herd.
Once they are 'well done', they get promoted and are now ready to kick
those in the butt, who are new.
After practicing this enough and well, they get a promotion.
Now their new taks is to do nasty things like telling complete bullshit
to the public.
Once they succeede, they get promoted again and raise to the next level.
There they get an advertising agency, for instance, or a newspaper or
other means of mass manipulation and enough money to promote the
bullshit from the levels below.
Bullshit, sorry, that's not how a cult works.
Bullshit, sorry, that's not how a cult works.
How do you know?
I thought, that system would be kind of 'fool-proof' and would use, what
is common among people.
Am 29.08.2023 um 08:44 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Bullshit, sorry, that's not how a cult works.
How do you know?
I thought, that system would be kind of 'fool-proof' and would use, whatFrom my own experience I would say:
is common among people.
people just love to be accepted into a restricted club!
On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 08:19:30 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.08.2023 um 08:44 schrieb Thomas Heger:
From my own experience I would say:Bullshit, sorry, that's not how a cult works.
How do you know?
I thought, that system would be kind of 'fool-proof' and would use, what >>> is common among people.
people just love to be accepted into a restricted club!
The knights of The Shit are free of weeknesses of
ordinary mortal worms.
There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices
Famous, and quite dated by now, (1983) and off-topic here,
Jan
There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 325 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 85:32:12 |
| Calls: | 7,164 |
| Files: | 12,543 |
| Messages: | 5,534,422 |