• Crooked and Straight Geometry

    From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 11 17:50:33 2023
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles
    Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 12 11:02:23 2023
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Non-Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Because time is not a spatial dimension, non-Euclidean geometry is merely a diagrammatical illustration of math. And, as Feynman said, the geometrical interpretation of gravity "is not necessary or essential to physics."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 12 12:18:12 2023
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 12 16:33:50 2023
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    The idea that a curved path of a physical object can be broken down into infinitesimal straight lines such that it does not involve accelerations and thus can be regarded as uniform linear motion is a pseudo-scientific denial of physics that Einstein
    promoted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 12 17:51:56 2023
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Nov 16 18:21:36 2023
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.

    Rotation is the only inertial frame example.
    Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
    If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
    most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
    Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
    Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
    We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Nov 17 10:27:01 2023
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 17 11:28:07 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    Yes, I have found his writing helpful even though he accepts some of relativity, such as time dilation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 17 11:31:55 2023
    On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
    Rotation is the only inertial frame example.
    Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
    If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
    most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
    Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
    Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
    We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
    Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Nov 17 11:49:44 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
    Rotation is the only inertial frame example.
    Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
    If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
    most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
    Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
    Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
    We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
    Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.

    What is your example of speed that isn't changing?
    Where is a real world example of no speed change?
    How can you have an inertial frame without that?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 17 15:32:02 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.

    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis
    thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Nov 17 16:58:13 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at
    all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 17 16:56:20 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
    Rotation is the only inertial frame example.
    Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
    If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
    most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
    Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
    Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
    We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
    Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.
    What is your example of speed that isn't changing?
    Where is a real world example of no speed change?
    How can you have an inertial frame without that?
    If not, then you cannot have uniform linear motion so that was Einstein's causative factor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Nov 17 20:44:40 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:35:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
    Rotation is the only inertial frame example.
    Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
    If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
    most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
    Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
    Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
    We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
    Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.
    What is your example of speed that isn't changing?
    Where is a real world example of no speed change?
    How can you have an inertial frame without that?
    Your cause for time dilation then becomes any motion.

    "Straight geometry" and "curved geometry"
    "Straight math" and "Curved Math"

    Sounds a bit like our Mitch, doesn't it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 17 20:35:30 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:18:15 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
    Round has its straight radial order...
    so does a QM interval path...
    Curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations so they are not uniform linear motion.
    Rotation is the only inertial frame example.
    Round is a curve and astronomical rotation can stay steady... in space there is no friction.
    If gravity is slowing everything down by the age of the universe
    most astronomical objects would have already stopped.
    Where is the evidence that gravity slows any rotation down?
    Why don't we sense rotation directly where we are?
    We don't see the rotation we have outside of the sky.
    Rotation has nothing necessarily to do with an inertial reference frame. Uniform linear motion of an IRF requires linear motion because curved trajectories necessarily involve accelerations precluding uniformity of velocity.
    What is your example of speed that isn't changing?
    Where is a real world example of no speed change?
    How can you have an inertial frame without that?
    Your cause for time dilation then becomes any motion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Nov 18 09:20:00 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at
    all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Nov 18 10:33:05 2023
    On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 18:20:03 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it
    at all.
    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...


    Al, poor halfbrain, come on. The evidence is only making you
    spitting more fiercely. As expected from a fanatic idiot, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Nov 18 11:28:04 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it
    at all.
    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Nov 18 17:43:53 2023
    On 11/18/2023 12:20 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it
    at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    yeah cranks like to hang out with each other, pat each other on the back
    and form a little cult of stupidity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Nov 18 18:57:45 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of
    it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."

    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Nov 18 20:37:26 2023
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Nov 18 21:02:50 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    If you had read with any comprehension you would know the point is there is no point to non-Euclidean geometry (other than moronic heuristic purposes).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Nov 18 21:13:37 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Nov 18 21:25:45 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.

    You, obviously, are not a person with knowledge regarding physics. You don't even know first-year physics!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Nov 18 21:15:30 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Nov 18 21:53:48 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 19 02:08:47 2023
    On 11/19/2023 12:53 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.

    Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to Jan's
    post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Nov 19 00:29:57 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/19/2023 12:53 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.
    Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to Jan's post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?
    Foolish old Jan never got around to telling us what IS the point of curved geometry. Because he doesn't even know hizself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 19 00:28:20 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:13:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.
    The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 19 10:22:02 2023
    Am 18.11.2023 um 00:32 schrieb Paul Alsing:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic
    not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.

    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.


    He proposes a 'pi=4 theory', what I regard as wrong.

    He apparently had developed a

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

    and called that 'unified field theory'.

    But I actually think, that my own is much better.

    See here:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Nov 19 10:26:16 2023
    On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )

    Crazy as a loon

    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sun Nov 19 02:37:52 2023
    On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 05:37:29 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    The point of having them is that some idiots were bored about
    always the same mathematics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 19 02:36:17 2023
    On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 03:57:48 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of
    it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Al, poor fanatic trash, come on. The evidence is
    only making idiots like you barking more fiercely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 19 11:43:21 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:25:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.
    You, obviously, are not a person with knowledge regarding physics. You don't even know first-year physics!

    Are you still in class paul. You do belong there...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 19 15:25:22 2023
    On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:25:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    Relativity is prestigious nonsense. It does not confer prestige in the eyes of people with knowledge.

    You, obviously, are not a person with knowledge regarding physics. You don't even know first-year physics!

    Are you still in class paul. You do belong there...

    Everyone should learn new stuff every day, Mitch.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 20 08:05:43 2023
    Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )

    Crazy as a loon


    Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.

    But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.

    the idea behind it was this:

    Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
    is too young for this type of crime.

    But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on his
    hands than any other politician before or after.

    So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar
    to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.

    These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' killers.

    These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
    -nevertheless- killers afterwards.


    Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
    later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
    named Jenny Jerome.

    This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
    'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.


    And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Nov 20 09:25:55 2023
    On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )

    Crazy as a loon


    Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.

    But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.

    the idea behind it was this:

    Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
    is too young for this type of crime.

    But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
    his hands than any other politician before or after.

    So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar
    to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.

    These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' killers.

    These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
    -nevertheless- killers afterwards.


    Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
    later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
    named Jenny Jerome.

    This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
    'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.


    And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...

    I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have
    been better to say even crazier than a loon.

    I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same
    country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the
    Rolling Stones?

    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 21 09:37:31 2023
    Am 20.11.2023 um 09:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )

    Crazy as a loon


    Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.

    But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.

    the idea behind it was this:

    Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
    is too young for this type of crime.

    But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
    his hands than any other politician before or after.

    So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is
    similar to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of
    Africa.

    These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them
    'good' killers.

    These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
    -nevertheless- killers afterwards.


    Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
    later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
    named Jenny Jerome.

    This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
    'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.


    And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...

    I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have been better to say even crazier than a loon.

    I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the Rolling Stones?

    No, certainly not, because you don't sound like a rock-musician.


    Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was most
    likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy as you
    think.


    Churchill had certain odd habits, which resemble in a way the mindset of occultists like Alisteir Crowley.

    He was also very racist and had at least a few sympathies for naziism.


    But much more than this, there exist two books, which mentioned Churchill:

    https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp

    https://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Britischer-Agent-Solving-History/dp/0985227818

    If these books are correct, than Churchills 'head-count' would also
    include the millions murdered by Hitler and Stalin, what would add up to
    a collosal number, that can hardly be surpassed by anyone else.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Tue Nov 21 13:26:00 2023
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ ╜ ]

    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )

    Crazy as a loon


    Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.

    But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.

    the idea behind it was this:

    Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
    is too young for this type of crime.

    But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
    his hands than any other politician before or after.

    So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is similar
    to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of Africa.

    These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them 'good' killers.

    These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
    -nevertheless- killers afterwards.


    Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert, later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York, named Jenny Jerome.

    This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as 'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.


    And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...

    I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have
    been better to say even crazier than a loon.

    I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the Rolling Stones?

    I think plain English is lacking adequate superlatives for 'crazy as a
    loon' to do justice to TH,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 22 08:43:19 2023
    Am 19.11.2023 um 06:02 schrieb Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    If you had read with any comprehension you would know the point is there is no point to non-Euclidean geometry (other than moronic heuristic purposes).


    Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not supported by nature.

    To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.

    But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an
    angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.

    Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.

    Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.

    So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???

    Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.

    On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.


    This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.

    These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we live
    on and where we like to define positions.

    (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 22 10:14:53 2023
    Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

    Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not supported by nature.

    To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.

    But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an
    angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.

    Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.

    Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.

    So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???

    Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.

    On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.


    This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.

    These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we live
    on and where we like to define positions.

    (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)


    TH

    So you are talking about celestial navigation.
    I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
    celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Nov 22 01:56:23 2023
    On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 10:12:53 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    So you are talking about celestial navigation.
    I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
    celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.

    And only relativistic idiots can think otherwise; as seen -
    not even all of them are stupid enough.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Nov 22 10:59:32 2023
    On 11/21/2023 3:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 20.11.2023 um 09:25 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-20 07:05:43 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 19.11.2023 um 10:26 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:


    [ … ]

    (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more
    numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually
    Winston Churchill ;-))
    )

    Crazy as a loon


    Well, the idea is certainly a little strange.

    But it has some rational foundation, thou it is most likely wrong.

    the idea behind it was this:

    Churchill was only 14 at the time of the jack the ripper murders, what
    is too young for this type of crime.

    But Churchill was also the poltician, who had more innocent blood on
    his hands than any other politician before or after.

    So, possibly, he was subject to a kind of 'education', which is
    similar to those, who were trained as boy-soldiers in some parts of
    Africa.

    These kinds have to kill real people early in life, to make them
    'good' killers.

    These kids are actually victims of a criminal practise, thou
    -nevertheless- killers afterwards.


    Now rumors say, that Winston Churchill was actually the son of Albert,
    later Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, with a matress from New York,
    named Jenny Jerome.

    This kind of offspring of the Royals were ideal for future use as
    'killers', if educated early enough for their role in the world.


    And left behind were the bodies of unwanted lifeforms in Whitechapel...

    I was too restrained to use the term crazy as a loon; it would have been
    better to say even crazier than a loon.

    I am essentially the same age as Mick Jagger and was born in the same
    country. Can you deduce from that that I'm a clandestine member of the
    Rolling Stones?

    No, certainly not, because you don't sound like a rock-musician.

    And Churchill doesn't sound much like a mass murderer.


    Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy as you think.

    No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.


    Churchill had certain odd habits, which resemble in a way the mindset of occultists like Alisteir Crowley.

    He was also very racist and had at least a few sympathies for naziism.

    Which has no connection to Jack the Ripper, since Jack the Ripper didn't
    target Jews or racial minorities.


    But much more than this, there exist two books, which mentioned Churchill:

    If these books are correct, than Churchills 'head-count' would also
    include the millions murdered by Hitler and Stalin, what would add up to
    a collosal number, that can hardly be surpassed by anyone else.

    No, the blood of millions remains on the hands of Hitler and Stalin, not Churchill. You can argue that Stalin fooled him (and others) to gain
    control of Eastern Europe and force communism on them, but the evil of
    Hitler and Stalin remains theirs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 23 07:45:11 2023
    Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
    Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

    Euclidean geometry is based on an assumption, which is illogic and not
    supported by nature.

    To have three rectilinear axes requires straight lines and right angles.

    But nature does not 'like' right angles. 90° is just one example of an
    angle and no phenomenon in nature uses this particular number.

    Also streight lines or circles are not found in nature very often.

    Those are human artifacts and not a feature of the world around us.

    So: what would be a better and more natural way to describe positions???

    Well, first you need an 'anchor' point and known directions.

    On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a position.


    This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.

    These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
    live on and where we like to define positions.

    (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)


    TH

    So you are talking about celestial navigation.
    I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
    celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.


    Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than Euclidean.

    The idea behind Euiclidean geometry is what Newton called 'absolute space'.

    I personally regard this concept as wrong.

    I would like to take spacetime of GR as 'prior' and regard our 'space'
    as a mere optical illusion.

    The universe as we see it, is actually stacked in time, hence is not
    real, but a picture.

    We receive this picture by means of light, hence all seen events belong
    to our own past light cone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

    Since the vertical axis means time, we have a set of circles, which are 'stacked in time'.

    And since these circles are two-dimensional reductions of three
    dimensions, we have actually nested spheres.

    These set of nested spheres are similar to Ptolomy and his crystal
    spheres, because the spheres are representations of time (meaning: the
    further away the longer ago).

    Now Euclidean geometry does not fit to this picture, because Euclidean
    space is timeless, while spheric geometry would.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 23 08:00:58 2023
    Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:


    Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
    most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
    as you think.

    No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.

    You simply don't understand the scientific method.

    This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and
    set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain observation.

    Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.

    But usually you would first try to disprove it by showing, that it is
    actually impossible what you assume.


    E.g. if you show, that Winston Churchill could not possibly have been in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, you had made the assumption
    impossible and had rejected that claim.

    But neither experiment nor such a proof are possible, because Churchill
    had been in London in that era and experiments are impossible today.

    so: what next?

    Maybe we need to talk to witnesses or collect other evidence.

    But that's also impossible, because the events are longer ago than
    people usually live.

    Maybe we ask contemporaries about their impressions.

    Not possible neither, but we have contemporary statements:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFaWrvgneQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN9aaZDI-No


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Nov 23 14:13:24 2023
    On 2023-11-23 07:00:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:


    Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
    most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
    as you think.

    No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.

    You simply don't understand the scientific method.

    And you do? You've never provided any evidence that you do. What
    scientific discoveries have you made that have been published in
    respectable (not vanity) journals?

    This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and
    set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain
    observation.

    Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.

    But usually you would first try to disprove it by showing, that it is actually impossible what you assume.


    E.g. if you show, that Winston Churchill could not possibly have been
    in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, you had made the assumption impossible and had rejected that claim.

    But neither experiment nor such a proof are possible, because Churchill
    had been in London in that era and experiments are impossible today.

    so: what next?

    Maybe we need to talk to witnesses or collect other evidence.

    But that's also impossible, because the events are longer ago than
    people usually live.

    Maybe we ask contemporaries about their impressions.

    Not possible neither, but we have contemporary statements:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFaWrvgneQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN9aaZDI-No


    ...


    TH


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Nov 23 09:34:05 2023
    On 11/23/2023 1:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

    So you are talking about celestial navigation.
    I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
    celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.


    Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than
    Euclidean.

    [...]

    Now Euclidean geometry does not fit to this picture, because Euclidean
    space is timeless, while spheric geometry would.

    Spherical coordinates are Euclidean, or not, depending on how used. Just
    as Cartesian coordinates are Euclidean, or not, depending on how used.
    There is a simple transformation from Cartesian (or cylindrical)
    coordinated to/from spherical, and whether it's Euclidean or not depends
    on other things.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Nov 23 09:29:00 2023
    On 11/23/2023 2:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 22.11.2023 um 16:59 schrieb Volney:


    Anyhow: my hypothesis (Winston Churchill was 'Jack-the-Ripper') was
    most likely wrong, but it is still a valid hypothesis and not as crazy
    as you think.

    No, it is 'crazy as a loon' crazy.

    You simply don't understand the scientific method.

    This method is based on the idea, that you should make up your mind and
    set up a hypothesis, which could eventually explain a certain observation.

    Then you need to test your hypothesis, e.g. in an experiment.

    [...]

    But before we even get that far, you have to consider the absurdity of
    the concept that it was Churchill rather than any of the other men of
    the right age in London at the time. First, as you stated, Churchill
    wasn't even of the right age, as you yourself stated. Second, Churchill
    doesn't sound much like a mass murderer.

    So yes, the idea is "loon" level crazy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 23 20:47:50 2023
    Den 23.11.2023 07:45, skrev Thomas Heger:
    Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
    Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

    On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a
    position.


    This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.

    These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
    live on and where we like to define positions.

    (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)


    TH


    So you are talking about celestial navigation.
    I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
    celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.



    You didn't get the point?

    When you use a clock to find the longitude of your
    position, it is because you must have measured the direction
    to the Sun (or Moon or a star). Determining your position
    this way is geometry! Euclidean geometry!
    Celestial navigation as we know it would be impossible
    without Euclidean geometry.


    Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than
    Euclidean.

    See Volney's comment.

    You seem to think that a Cartesian coordinate system must be used
    in Euclidean geometry. That is nonsense. Spherical coordinates
    are used in celestial navigation. The geometry is still Euclidean.


    The idea behind Euiclidean geometry is what Newton called 'absolute space'.

    I personally regard this concept as wrong.

    Euclidean geometry is a consistent mathematical system based
    on a set of postulates. It is not physics, and it is meaningless
    to say it is 'wrong'.

    Newton lived more than 1900 years later.
    He took for granted that Euclidean space was a good model
    of physical space, and based his physics on it.

    Newtonian mechanics is a consistent theory,
    and good model of "reality" within its scope. It is still
    used on most physical problems, and we know it's limitation-


    I would like to take spacetime of GR as 'prior' and regard our 'space'
    as a mere optical illusion.
    Gobbledygook.


    The universe as we see it, is actually stacked in time, hence is not
    real, but a picture.

    And you can see the hand of the photographer?

    <snip nonsense>

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Nov 25 13:22:48 2023
    On November 19, patdolan wrote:
    You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige
    instead of knowledge.

    The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxrlcLktcxU

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Nov 25 13:52:56 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 1:22:50 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
    On November 19, patdolan wrote:
    You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige
    instead of knowledge.

    The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxrlcLktcxU

    --
    Rich
    Well, Pat, universities will accept tuition for teaching anything people imagine to be prestigious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Nov 25 20:20:06 2023
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of
    it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Nov 25 20:19:09 2023
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight
    geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for
    mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved
    geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it
    is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous."
    Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense.
    Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer
    review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
    Peer review enforces ignorant dogmas in dark back rooms in secret. It is a censorious mechanism hostile to the truth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Nov 25 20:21:20 2023
    On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:28:22 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:13:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan
    You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.
    The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.
    Well, Pat, universities will accept tuition for teaching anything people imagine to be prestigious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Nov 25 20:22:13 2023
    On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:30:00 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/19/2023 12:53 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with
    straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]

    You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.

    --
    Jan

    The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.
    Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to Jan's post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?
    Foolish old Jan never got around to telling us what IS the point of curved geometry. Because he doesn't even know hizself.
    It is only a reification fallacy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Nov 25 21:37:51 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
    with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and
    famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any
    of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.

    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 07:38:01 2023
    On Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 06:37:54 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:

    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations,

    And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
    idiots like you "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
    like all serious clocks always did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Nov 26 07:39:37 2023
    On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 20:45:49 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 07:45, skrev Thomas Heger:
    Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
    Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:

    On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a
    position.


    This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.

    These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
    live on and where we like to define positions.

    (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)


    TH


    So you are talking about celestial navigation.
    I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
    celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.


    You didn't get the point?

    When you use a clock to find the longitude of your
    position, it is because you must have measured the direction
    to the Sun (or Moon or a star). Determining your position
    this way is geometry! Euclidean geometry!
    Celestial navigation as we know it would be impossible
    without Euclidean geometry.
    Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than Euclidean.
    See Volney's comment.

    You seem to think that a Cartesian coordinate system must be used
    in Euclidean geometry. That is nonsense. Spherical coordinates
    are used in celestial navigation. The geometry is still Euclidean.

    Sure it is; only relativistic idiots are dumb enough to deny, and - as
    seen - not even all of them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 12:00:49 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
    with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich
    and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts
    any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 26 16:29:35 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
    with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich
    and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts
    any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.

    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

    Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 16:52:00 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
    solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
    were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As
    I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become
    pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people
    rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
    accepts any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

    Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
    Explain how any of it is right!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 17:05:43 2023
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved
    with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too
    subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will
    show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not
    because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich
    and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts
    any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    Paul? Can you measure the difference between absolute and relative motion?
    At a motion black hole the atom competes with light. If light is absolute motion
    and the atom can compete how is the atom not having a form of absolute motion of
    its own?


    You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 26 18:35:06 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:05:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

    Paul? Can you measure the difference between absolute and relative motion? At a motion black hole the atom competes with light. If light is absolute motion
    and the atom can compete how is the atom not having a form of absolute motion of
    its own?

    Mitch, I'm pretty sure that if you have a functioning brain in your head you would take it out and play with it.

    How can anyone write such drivel with a straight face?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 26 18:15:25 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
    solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
    were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As
    I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become
    pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people
    rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
    fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny
    of a basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
    accepts any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

    Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

    Explain how any of it is right!

    That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is
    wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you
    post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 19:22:41 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
    solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
    were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As
    I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become
    pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes
    people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
    fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny
    of a basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
    accepts any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

    Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

    Explain how any of it is right!
    That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory
    is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you
    post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...
    You have a child-like faith in the system.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Nov 26 20:54:56 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 7:22:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can
    be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those
    problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to
    move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has
    become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes
    people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
    fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny
    of a basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
    accepts any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

    Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

    Explain how any of it is right!
    That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new
    theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every
    time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...

    You have a child-like faith in the system.

    A statement that only reinforces my claim. You remain completely clueless.

    The system works. You do not understand this and reject it without cause.

    Get a new hobby because this one is *way* beyond your comprehension.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Nov 27 02:02:54 2023
    On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.

    Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so
    your claim is false.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Nov 26 23:43:05 2023
    On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 08:03:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so

    And unfortunately for you, in the meantime in the
    real world forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
    clocks keep measuring t'=t..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Nov 26 23:40:59 2023
    On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 01:29:38 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be
    solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems
    were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As
    I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become
    pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people
    rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched
    nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a
    basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he
    accepts any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Al, poor halfbrain, why would experiments be wrong?
    It's just that being an idiot lacking any logic - you're
    imagining they're supporting your idiocies. It's quite
    ordinary of course, every fanatic idiot of the world
    believes that everything is supporting his idiocies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 26 23:45:24 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
    We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can
    be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those
    problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to
    move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has
    become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
    and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes
    people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"

    Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
    I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

    "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-
    fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny
    of a basic peer review.

    In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."

    It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is
    he accepts any of it at all.

    Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...

    I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
    All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

    Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
    And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

    You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
    Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
    You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

    Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

    Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

    Explain how any of it is right!
    That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new
    theory is wrong.

    That's not how science works, Al. Of course, you have no
    clue as to how science works, and no surprise: science
    is complicated and you're very dumb.

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