"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence, it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity oflight."
"What is surprising about all this is not that relativity is a false well-confirmed theory. In the history of the sciences, there are many such theories. After all, theory-making is partly guesswork and confirmation is not verification. What issurprising is what veritable armies of brilliant mathematicians, philosophers and physicists, among them Nobel prize winners such as Einstein himself, have managed to swallow and defend relativity in spite of its inconsistency."
"Apparently, they were so occupied with manipulating the equations that they never had the time to investigate some of the less immediate concrete consequences of the equations. Others are simply confused and rather aggressive against critics of theirfaith."
"The claim by Davies that Maxwell's electrodynamics has relativity built into it ignores that Maxwell's constant velocity value forclub members like Davies. Such a person will almost certainly reject a critical text by means of a subterfuge without even reading it."
electromagnetic propagation was relative to a single ether-type medium and not to all inertial frames"
"Nordenson argues for the inconsistency of relativity from aspects somewhat different than those employed above. He also gives an interesting critical survey of the literature on the subject and concludes that relativity is one of the
most serious logical incoherencies in the history of science. He also accuses those who continue to uphold relativity without refuting his criticism of grave intellectual laxity. It seems that the relativity club is a rather lax bunch. Indeed,
it is amazing that such insights have been successfully hidden from the scientific public for so long. The only explanation for this seems to be widespread and unshakeable prejudice. For example, those who referee texts against relativity are usually
"Another amazing aspect of the relativistic deception is the almost complete ignorance among experts that the strongest support for relativity, the Michelson-Morley null result, is perhaps worthless. In [3], Golling argues that the result must be nullunless very short impulses such as those of radar are
used. According to him, a similar acoustic Michelson-Morley setup would also give a null result although the speed of sound is clearly not the same in all inertial frames. The Michelson-Morley null result is then a pseudofact like Tycho Brahe's nullresult for stellar parallax due to the motion of the earth. It is worth mentioning that the whole collection of which [3] is a part shows a healthy scientific skepticism about relativity instead of the usual blind faith.2[2 A considerable number of
(1979) and vol. 3 (1980) of Speculations in Science and Technology. I have not had the chance to doof some physics professors can be attributed to this phenomenon."
more than glance at them. However, it is worth calling attention to a letter to the editor by
J. Chappell in vol. 3. It is here described how the attempts he and others have made to criticize or
improve upon relativity have been deliberately and systematically kept from view. I have had the
same experience with both local physicists and the editors and referees of Nature. Thus, the
relativity club is not only lax, but also a collection of priests of the prophet Einstein who work
hard at keeping the dogma respected. This kind of behavior is exactly like that of the members of
the Pythagorean sect who made efforts to keep the existence of irrational roots a secret. Indeed, the
errors of relativity appear to still be sacrosanct in a most characteristic manner: they are certified as
beyond question and those who dare to contradict them are subject to punishment or ridicule."
"Also, if the public is deceived, the incomprehensible is superior to the clear in that it allows one to pose as one of the elite who "understands". This can bring both prestige and incomes. No small portion of the prestige of Einstein and the incomes
-"The Inconsistency of the Theory of Relativity" by Rolf SchockBoth Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer sanity."
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:21:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
And Jan is a queen of England.
Of course it does, it has been demonstrated here
many times.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:21:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:Because relativity works from illogical self-contradictory assumptions everything following from it is thoroughly self-contradictory. I wonder why Jan cannot defend it with reason?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:And Jan is a queen of England.
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
Of course it does, it has been demonstrated here
many times.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:21:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
And Jan is a queen of England.a member of the british aristocracy surely...
Of course it does, it has been demonstrated here
many times.
Duchess Jan,
I remain Your Grace's most obedient servant...
yours sincerely
Envelope: Le Starmaker
i am not worthy
--It has always been science by decree.
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:26:20 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:21:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:Because relativity works from illogical self-contradictory assumptions everything following from it is thoroughly self-contradictory. I wonder why Jan cannot defend it with reason?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:And Jan is a queen of England.
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
Of course it does, it has been demonstrated here
many times.
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence, it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity oflight."
"What is surprising about all this is not that relativity is a false well-confirmed theory. In the history of the sciences, there are many such theories. After all, theory-making is partly guesswork and confirmation is not verification. What issurprising is what veritable armies of brilliant mathematicians, philosophers and physicists, among them Nobel prize winners such as Einstein himself, have managed to swallow and defend relativity in spite of its inconsistency."
"Apparently, they were so occupied with manipulating the equations that they never had the time to investigate some of the less immediate concrete consequences of the equations. Others are simply confused and rather aggressive against critics of theirfaith."
"The claim by Davies that Maxwell's electrodynamics has relativity built into it ignores that Maxwell's constant velocity value forclub members like Davies. Such a person will almost certainly reject a critical text by means of a subterfuge without even reading it."
electromagnetic propagation was relative to a single ether-type medium and not to all inertial frames"
"Nordenson argues for the inconsistency of relativity from aspects somewhat different than those employed above. He also gives an interesting critical survey of the literature on the subject and concludes that relativity is one of the
most serious logical incoherencies in the history of science. He also accuses those who continue to uphold relativity without refuting his criticism of grave intellectual laxity. It seems that the relativity club is a rather lax bunch. Indeed,
it is amazing that such insights have been successfully hidden from the scientific public for so long. The only explanation for this seems to be widespread and unshakeable prejudice. For example, those who referee texts against relativity are usually
"Another amazing aspect of the relativistic deception is the almost complete ignorance among experts that the strongest support for relativity, the Michelson-Morley null result, is perhaps worthless. In [3], Golling argues that the result must be nullunless very short impulses such as those of radar are
used. According to him, a similar acoustic Michelson-Morley setup would also give a null result although the speed of sound is clearly not the same in all inertial frames. The Michelson-Morley null result is then a pseudofact like Tycho Brahe's nullresult for stellar parallax due to the motion of the earth. It is worth mentioning that the whole collection of which [3] is a part shows a healthy scientific skepticism about relativity instead of the usual blind faith.2[2 A considerable number of
(1979) and vol. 3 (1980) of Speculations in Science and Technology. I have not had the chance to doof some physics professors can be attributed to this phenomenon."
more than glance at them. However, it is worth calling attention to a letter to the editor by
J. Chappell in vol. 3. It is here described how the attempts he and others have made to criticize or
improve upon relativity have been deliberately and systematically kept from view. I have had the
same experience with both local physicists and the editors and referees of Nature. Thus, the
relativity club is not only lax, but also a collection of priests of the prophet Einstein who work
hard at keeping the dogma respected. This kind of behavior is exactly like that of the members of
the Pythagorean sect who made efforts to keep the existence of irrational roots a secret. Indeed, the
errors of relativity appear to still be sacrosanct in a most characteristic manner: they are certified as
beyond question and those who dare to contradict them are subject to punishment or ridicule."
"Also, if the public is deceived, the incomprehensible is superior to the clear in that it allows one to pose as one of the elite who "understands". This can bring both prestige and incomes. No small portion of the prestige of Einstein and the incomes
-"The Inconsistency of the Theory of Relativity" by Rolf Schock
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a
theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or aEither:
theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
Note that if (A) were true, the author would be internationally famous
in both math and physics, almost surely receiving both a Fields Medal
and a Nobel Prize. One can safely ignore this claim until that happens.
Tom Roberts
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:34:51 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,Either:
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
Note that if (A) were true, the author would be internationally famous
in both math and physics, almost surely receiving both a Fields Medal
and a Nobel Prize. One can safely ignore this claim until that happens.
Tom RobertsA true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or aEither:
theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:34:51 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,Either:
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
Note that if (A) were true, the author would be internationally famous
in both math and physics, almost surely receiving both a Fields Medal
and a Nobel Prize. One can safely ignore this claim until that happens.
Tom RobertsA true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:25:13 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:So, Woz, you don't believe in the evidence supporting relativity why, exactly?
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 18:34:51 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:He is pretending to practice logical reasoning.
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:or
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,Either:
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
C) Tom Roberts is an illogical, lying moron.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:29:52 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:" Why exactly?" He didn't read the first line: "However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. "
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:25:13 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:As said - every believer believes that what
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:So, Woz, you don't believe in the evidence supporting relativity why, exactly?
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
he believes is magnificiently supported.
No logic in that, however.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:29:52 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:25:13 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
So, Woz, you don't believe in the evidence supporting relativity why, exactly?
As said - every believer believes that what
he believes is magnificiently supported.
No logic in that, however.
" Why exactly?" He didn't read the first line: "However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. "
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:26:20 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:21:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:Because relativity works from illogical self-contradictory assumptions
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:And Jan is a queen of England.
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
Of course it does, it has been demonstrated here
many times.
everything following from it is thoroughly self-contradictory. I wonder why Jan cannot defend it with reason?
-Skeptic of Bigfoot, UFOs and Relativity LCC
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:29:52 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:" Why exactly?" He didn't read the first line: "However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. "
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:25:13 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:As said - every believer believes that what
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:So, Woz, you don't believe in the evidence supporting relativity why, exactly?
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
he believes is magnificiently supported.
No logic in that, however.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:29:52 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:25:13 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
So, Woz, you don't believe in the evidence supporting relativity why, exactly?
The evidence has never been shown to be wrong.As said - every believer believes that what
he believes is magnificiently supported.
No logic in that, however.
" Why exactly?" He didn't read the first line: "However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. "You have yet to point out a valid contradiction. You think you have but you are wrong.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 06:21:38 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.Relativity does not contain contradictions.
And Jan is a queen of England.
Of course it does, it has been demonstrated here
many times.
a member of the british aristocracy surely...
Duchess Jan,
I remain Your Grace's most obedient servant...
yours sincerely
Envelope: Le Starmaker
i am not worthy
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:00:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:Relativity does not contain any contradictions.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:29:52 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:" Why exactly?" He didn't read the first line: "However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. "
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:25:13 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:As said - every believer believes that what
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 20:22:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:So, Woz, you don't believe in the evidence supporting relativity why, exactly?
Of course he does, like you anf your fellow idiots.A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.A true believer trusts that the evidence in support of a theory is correct.
You're such idiots.
he believes is magnificiently supported.
No logic in that, however.
Period.
There is nothing you can do or say otherwise except gobbledygook.
This is not debatable.
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or aEither:
theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
Note that if (A) were true, the author would be internationally famous
in both math and physics, almost surely receiving both a Fields Medal
and a Nobel Prize. One can safely ignore this claim until that happens.
Tom Roberts
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 17:34:51 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction orEither: A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything.
Hence, it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also
for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of
light."
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis or B)
this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
Note that if (A) were true, the author would be internationally
famous in both math and physics, almost surely receiving both a
Fields Medal and a Nobel Prize. One can safely ignore this claim
until that happens.
[... complete misrepresentation of things I have said]
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 17:34:51 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:Just shows some people don't get the Nobel's they deserve.
On 9/25/23 10:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"However, it is pointless to seek evidence for a contradiction or a theory containing contradictions since both imply anything. Hence,Either:
it is pointless to invoke evidence for relativity and also for the exuberantly defended constancy of the velocity of light."
A) this claim is true, and the author has shown similar
inconsistencies in both Euclidean geometry and real analysis
or
B) this claim is false and all that follows is complete nonsense
Note that if (A) were true, the author would be internationally famous
in both math and physics, almost surely receiving both a Fields Medal
and a Nobel Prize. One can safely ignore this claim until that happens.
Tom RobertsYes Tom. Reminds me of two of your ludicrous fact free claims.
Presumably you got a nobel for being so disingenuous:
Tom claim 1) Sagnac and MMX are both conducted in the same
lab with the same air. But the results of one of the experiments
cannot be accepted due to extinction of light in air in the lab. But results from the other experiment can be accepted..because Tom says light
isn’t affected by extinction in the air!
Tom Claim 2) SR can use current empirical observations from MMX
type experiments to confirm predictions made by SR.
But any classical emission theories cannot use the same MMX
observations to confirm predictions made by emission theory because
the experiment isn’t sensitive enough!!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 349 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 144:39:49 |
| Calls: | 7,614 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,790 |
| Messages: | 5,684,609 |
| Posted today: | 2 |