Relativity is a dead pseudoscience, and Einstein's legacy is at the
bottom of the science swamp.
Are you, relativists, still supporting this nonsense? SR and GR?
On 2024-09-01 01:18:33 +0000, rhertz said:
Relativity is a dead pseudoscience, and Einstein's legacy is at the
bottom of the science swamp.
So you say. Your opinion does not matter.
Are you, relativists, still supporting this nonsense? SR and GR?
As long as nothing better is available. Though an inferionr
approximation can be regarded as better when it is accurate
enough and easier to use.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 1:18:33 +0000, rhertz wrote:
Relativity is a dead pseudoscience, and Einstein's legacy is at the
bottom of the science swamp.
Are you, relativists, still supporting this nonsense? SR and GR?
It's not "nonsense", you just don't understand this theory and how
science (esp. physics) operates in general.
JanPB: You're too old and biased to understand my points. You're also a mathematician, not a physicist, and a very indoctrinated one, after
decades of your cult worship.
I'm more qualified than you to have opinions on these matter, either theoretically or experimentally. You, instead, are stuck to revere what
you believe through (just) mathematics, believing that it's physics.
Instead of constantly spit your downplaying narrative to non-believers
like me (I'm religious but in other ways), try to enumerate at least
THREE reasons by which you believe your "faith" is certain, and my
opposite views are wrong. I bet that you'll be dismissive again, because
you are blind to other positions like a hooligan is with its team.
Hate and blind rejection clog your mind, preventing you to have the
slightest doubt, as it happens to fanatics.
Tell me three main points of your criticism towards my anti-relativity position, and be sure to use EXPERIMENTAL facts, not what childish OR unsolvable non-linear equations force you to sustain your position.
We should not blame mathematicians too much for the fact that the
mathematics used for relativity are very fanciful and very false.
Tell me three main points of your criticism towards my anti-relativity position, and be sure to use EXPERIMENTAL facts.
Finally, IF you are enlightened to see the truth
Den 03.09.2024 21:40, skrev rhertz:
Finally, IF you are enlightened to see the truth
...then look at the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 21:51, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 03.09.2024 21:40, skrev rhertz:
Finally, IF you are enlightened to see the truth
...then look at the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
See, trash: any idiot can point anything
and scream that it is evidence.
Le 04/09/2024 à 22:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 21:51, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 03.09.2024 21:40, skrev rhertz:
Finally, IF you are enlightened to see the truth
...then look at the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
See, trash: any idiot can point anything
and scream that it is evidence.
You know well, right Maciej?
Also do we.
This is why we have peer validation you know?
Peers from different times, cultures and countries. So
this likely exclude herd effect.
Do you have any kind of peer validation for your "proof",
even from a SINGLE peer?
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 22:37, Python pisze:
Le 04/09/2024 à 22:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 21:51, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 03.09.2024 21:40, skrev rhertz:
Finally, IF you are enlightened to see the truth
...then look at the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
See, trash: any idiot can point anything
and scream that it is evidence.
You know well, right Maciej?
Also do we.
This is why we have peer validation you know?
Peers from different times, cultures and countries. So
this likely exclude herd effect.
Sorry, trash, the mumble of your idiot guru was
not even consistent - it has been proven. Herd
effect definitely.
Do you have any kind of peer validation for your "proof",
even from a SINGLE peer?
Why would I need it?
Le 04/09/2024 à 22:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 22:37, Python pisze:
Le 04/09/2024 à 22:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 04.09.2024 o 21:51, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 03.09.2024 21:40, skrev rhertz:
Finally, IF you are enlightened to see the truth
...then look at the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
See, trash: any idiot can point anything
and scream that it is evidence.
You know well, right Maciej?
Also do we.
This is why we have peer validation you know?
Peers from different times, cultures and countries. So
this likely exclude herd effect.
Sorry, trash, the mumble of your idiot guru was
not even consistent - it has been proven. Herd
effect definitely.
Do you have any kind of peer validation for your "proof",
even from a SINGLE peer?
Why would I need it?
Because ANY proof need peer review.
Including YOUR alleged proofs.
What would you make special? You are a son of God?
"Peers from different times, cultures and countries. So
this likely exclude herd effect. Especially after such
a long time."
And you STILL don't get it, do you?
Read HISTORY OF SCIENCE, please, and re-read my post explaining
developments in physics and chemistry since early 1900.
PEER REVIEW is such a stupid proposal!. It only applies to MEMBERS OF
THE SAME GANG!.
When a Journal call for referees in any give community, to start a PEER REVIEW process, only those members who ARE ALIGNED to current trends ARE ALLOWED. No antagonists are allowed, mostly because they have been
CANCELLED in several ways.
Switch to economy, for instance: Analyzing a given paper is ONLY
ALLOWED by calling experts on THE SAME LINE OF THOUGHT. If you still
have a functioning brain (which I doubt, after checking the SW of your website), you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that a peer review using high ranking economists from different branches, like keynesianians, raw capitalists
and libertarians IS IMPOSSIBLE, because their schools are conflicting in their credos and postulates (Keynes, Adam Smith, Friedman, Yellen,
Banerjee, Roubini, etc.).
Or take ANY OTHER FIELD, like medical sciences. You can't succeed by
asking pro and anti-vaccination top professionals opining on the same
matter. Or in technology: you CAN'T ASK for big shots from Intel, AMD
and nVidia to opinate about the future of 100 billion transistors chips.
It's not that you have a dogma or follow a cult, Phyton. The problem is
that you are the ultimate retarded, who find IMPOSSIBLE to think about different lines of thought besides relativism.
That's what fanatic indoctrinated people, with a fossilized brain, do.
Not different from any die hard fan of any team in sports. People like
you, the vast majority, chose the easiest path: TO BELONG TO THE HERD,
AND FOLLOW NON-WRITTEN RULES. You don't think within a herd, you just
follow the stream and are happy with it.
For me, you and many others here are brain-dead. Only one program to
execute working in your head.
But it's your life, even when you wasted it by forbidding yourself to
think freely, without dogmas.
Le 05/09/2024 à 03:07, rhertz a écrit :
"Peers from different times, cultures and countries. So
this likely exclude herd effect. Especially after such
a long time."
And you STILL don't get it, do you?
Read HISTORY OF SCIENCE, please, and re-read my post explaining
developments in physics and chemistry since early 1900.
could you provide links?
PEER REVIEW is such a stupid proposal!. It only applies to MEMBERS OF
THE SAME GANG!.
not quite
When a Journal call for referees in any give community, to start a PEER
REVIEW process, only those members who ARE ALIGNED to current trends ARE
ALLOWED. No antagonists are allowed, mostly because they have been
CANCELLED in several ways.
Switch to economy, for instance: Analyzing a given paper is ONLY
ALLOWED by calling experts on THE SAME LINE OF THOUGHT. If you still
have a functioning brain (which I doubt, after checking the SW of your
website), you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that a peer review using high ranking
economists from different branches, like keynesianians, raw capitalists
and libertarians IS IMPOSSIBLE, because their schools are conflicting in
their credos and postulates (Keynes, Adam Smith, Friedman, Yellen,
Banerjee, Roubini, etc.).
Or take ANY OTHER FIELD, like medical sciences. You can't succeed by
asking pro and anti-vaccination top professionals opining on the same
matter. Or in technology: you CAN'T ASK for big shots from Intel, AMD
and nVidia to opinate about the future of 100 billion transistors chips.
Nothing is perfect. Science is a part of Society. Society is Capitalism.
It's not that you have a dogma or follow a cult, Phyton. The problem is
that you are the ultimate retarded, who find IMPOSSIBLE to think about
different lines of thought besides relativism.
I have more trust in my critical thinking than in yours. Does it make
me a fool?
W dniu 05.09.2024 o 03:25, Python pisze:
I have more trust in my critical thinking than in yours. Does it make
me a fool?
No. What makes you a fool is the quality of
your "critical thinking".
When one [GPS] clock's indication is
'2024-09-06 17:00:00.0000000' - you may be
practically sure that all the others will
indicate the same, with the precision of
an acceptable error.
For me, you and many others here are brain-dead. Only one program to
execute working in your head.
But it's your life, even when you wasted it by forbidding yourself to
think freely, without dogmas.
Relativity is a dead pseudoscience, and Einstein's legacy is at the
bottom of the science swamp.
Are you, relativists, still supporting this nonsense? SR and GR?
W dniu 05.09.2024 o 14:43, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 05.09.2024 03:07, skrev rhertz:
For me, you and many others here are brain-dead. Only one program to
execute working in your head.
But it's your life, even when you wasted it by forbidding yourself to
think freely, without dogmas.
Richard Hertz, I have one simple question for you:
Why is it that SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments
and are never falsified?
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.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 8:14:04 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2024 o 03:25, Python pisze:
I have more trust in my critical thinking than in yours. Does it make
me a fool?
No. What makes you a fool is the quality of
your "critical thinking".
Nope, that's what makes Wozzie a fool.
When one [GPS] clock's indication is
'2024-09-06 17:00:00.0000000' - you may be
practically sure that all the others will
indicate the same, with the precision of
an acceptable error.
So the GPS clock on my wall says 6:22 AM (t) but the GPS
clock on my cousin's wall says 7:22 AM (t'), so
Den 05.09.2024 03:07, skrev rhertz:
For me, you and many others here are brain-dead. Only one program to
execute working in your head.
But it's your life, even when you wasted it by forbidding yourself to
think freely, without dogmas.
Richard Hertz, I have one simple question for you:
Why is it that SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments
and are never falsified?
Paul wrote:
Richard Hertz, I have one simple question for you:
Why is it that SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments
and are never falsified?
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
1) Most of the "experimental proofs" that you so proudly list are
doctored, hacked by using fraudulent cherry-picking of data or just
invented. The relativity community support these procedures, so they can
keep milking the funds that "people with an agenda" provides, either
from the state or the corrupt academia.
Den 05.09.2024 22:02, skrev rhertz:
Paul wrote:
Richard Hertz, I have one simple question for you:
Why is it that SR and GR are tested by a vast number of experiments
and are never falsified?
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
1) Most of the "experimental proofs" that you so proudly list are
doctored, hacked by using fraudulent cherry-picking of data or just
invented. The relativity community support these procedures, so they can
keep milking the funds that "people with an agenda" provides, either
from the state or the corrupt academia.
So what is most probable:
1. Richard Hertz is wrong.
2. All physicist since 1905 are frauds.
W dniu 05.09.2024 o 22:43, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
So what is most probable:
1. Richard Hertz is wrong.
2. All physicist since 1905 are frauds.
Both are very probable.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 4:35:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.09.2024 o 22:43, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
So what is most probable:
1. Richard Hertz is wrong.
2. All physicist since 1905 are frauds.
Both are very probable.
Says the self-proclaimed "information engineer."
He want's a "number" for what the GPS satellite
clock reads, with the dishonest assumption that
it must be read from the ground
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 69:20:34 |
| Calls: | 8,084 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,069 |
| Messages: | 5,849,716 |