It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
curved space for a second.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:You are lame on logic. Your derivation is wrong as already made clear in
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprehension.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Do you think the experiments prove parallel lines meet? They would have
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprehension.
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I'm on it!
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
Now that you are "on it", I just want to know who side you are on...
How many planets are there in our solar system?You know me. I wouldn't really take sides.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
I'm on it!
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 5:35:59 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I'm on it!
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
Now that you are "on it", I just want to know who side you are on...
How many planets are there in our solar system?You know me. I wouldn't really take sides.
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 5:35:59 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I'm on it!
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
Now that you are "on it", I just want to know who side you are on...
How many planets are there in our solar system?You know me. I wouldn't really take sides.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
Am Donnerstag000023, 23.01.2025 um 19:05 schrieb The Starmaker:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
No.
You are free to think whatever you like.
But it is not really recommended to actually believe what your TV,
teacher or professors tell you.
But it's also not recommended to contradict.
Better would be to nod and say 'yes' to everything and shout 'f*** you' later.
TH
On 1/23/25 4:05 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
The idea that space
expands or curves is a case of extraordinarily deceptive marketing. What kind of fool would defend this deceitfulness by accusing the critic of propounding conspiracy theory?
Keep this crap inside relativity forum, and that means out of the sci.physics. We may treat this place as a lounge, which it is in fact.
But it is not a place for mentally handicapped.
On 1/24/25 12:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 1/23/25 4:05 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
The idea that space
expands or curves is a case of extraordinarily deceptive marketing. What >>> kind of fool would defend this deceitfulness by accusing the critic of >>> propounding conspiracy theory?
Keep this crap inside relativity forum, and that means out of the
sci.physics. We may treat this place as a lounge, which it is in fact.
But it is not a place for mentally handicapped.
How many freaks fit in fhysics????
There's only one freak in sci.physics. Me. I'm so much into physical
fitness that I've become a freak about it.
You bozos who grab your little two pound dumbbells and "jog" for an
exercise do not know shit about exercise.
Got out of your den and walk 10 miles this afternoon. That's a start.
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You did not understand. Even Paul recently acknowledged that space is
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept
curved space for a second.
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I'm on it!
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
Now that you are "on it", I just want to know who side you are on...
How many planets are there in our solar system?I would point out that the idea that universities prioritize teaching
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Certainly, the simple logic is beyond your comprehension.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept
curved space for a second.
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 23:06:50 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 23:06:50 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Certainly, the simple logic is beyond your comprehension.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
Do you think the experiments have proven that parallel lines meet?
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
No.
You are free to think whatever you like.
But it is not really recommended to actually believe what your TV,
teacher or professors tell you.
But it's also not recommended to contradict.
Better would be to nod and say 'yes' to everything and shout 'f*** you'
later.
TH
So tell us what you really think, How many planets are there in our
solar system?
You are free to think whatever you like.
But it is not really recommended to actually believe what your TV,
teacher or professors tell you.
But it's also not recommended to contradict.
Better would be to nod and say 'yes' to everything and shout 'f***
you' later.
TH
Which means, Europeans are becoming Sheep too. Being Bitches of USA is
still better than being Sheep, but... you don't even have that for long.
Am Freitag000024, 24.01.2025 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
No.
You are free to think whatever you like.
But it is not really recommended to actually believe what your TV,
teacher or professors tell you.
But it's also not recommended to contradict.
Better would be to nod and say 'yes' to everything and shout 'f*** you'
later.
TH
So tell us what you really think, How many planets are there in our
solar system?
No, but I can tell you where the sun doesn't shine.
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass
baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic
attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent,
such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>> a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a
surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Ad hominem is a failure to reason.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 23:06:50 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
Clearly, you are a babbling kook.
*PLONK*
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritIt doesn't matter because math can't bend space. Anyone who thinks it
:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>>> a foolish fellow.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>>
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>> surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:None of you have been able to defend the derivation of the doubling. You
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 23:06:50 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
Clearly, you are a babbling kook.
*PLONK*
Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritWhat are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>> a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a
surface and its not curved.
Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:14, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritThat is not what I said. Why is it not a reification fallacy? Because
:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >>> :What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>>> a foolish fellow.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>>
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>> surface and its not curved.
Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be
"curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
Because you say so? LOL.
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for
fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very
pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by
the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A
cabal.
weaklings who
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't
accept
curved space for a second.
understood
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that
parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation
for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized
him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>> surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 Ã 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for
fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>> convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>> pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by
the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>>> cabal.
weaklings who
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>>> accept
curved space for a second.
understood
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that
parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>>>> for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and
recognized him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They >>>>>>> will
never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's
not a
surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense.
It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>> turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you)
Still confused Woz?
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 Ã 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's >>>>>>>> not a
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>>>>>> understood
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>>>>>> weaklings who
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish >>>>>>>>>>>>> error
that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>>>> convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by
the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? >>>>>>>>>>>> A cabal.
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they
wouldn't accept
curved space for a second.
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? >>>>>>>>>> Isn't it
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest >>>>>>>>>> and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>>>>> parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our
derivation for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable >>>>>>>>>> person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and
recognized him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface.
They will
never intersect.
surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>>>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange
sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>>>> turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you)
Still confused Woz?
No, Pyt.
Still you are.
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic?
If you want to know, learn.
I'm sad for nurses who have to clean your dirty pants every morning. But there is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately.
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
Le 26/01/2025 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:30, Python pisze:
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
It is good enough, Pyt.
In physics, he is unable to understand the difference between a proper,
real, and observable time.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:11:08 +0000, Python wrote:
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
It doesn't matter because math can't bend space. Anyone who thinks it
can is incompetent in physics. For example, Einstein.
On 1/24/25 2:43 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 1/24/25 12:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 1/23/25 4:05 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
The idea that space
expands or curves is a case of extraordinarily deceptive marketing. What
kind of fool would defend this deceitfulness by accusing the critic of >>>>> propounding conspiracy theory?
Keep this crap inside relativity forum, and that means out of the
sci.physics. We may treat this place as a lounge, which it is in fact. >>>> But it is not a place for mentally handicapped.
How many freaks fit in fhysics????
There's only one freak in sci.physics. Me. I'm so much into physical
fitness that I've become a freak about it.
You bozos who grab your little two pound dumbbells and "jog" for an
exercise do not know shit about exercise.
Got out of your den and walk 10 miles this afternoon. That's a start.
Don't tell any girl you post in a Physics newsgroup...she gonna think
you talk Gym.
(and don't say dumbbell in front of her...)
she might stab you with a kitchen knife..
YOU FUCKING DUMBBELL WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING????
Why, is there another meaning to dumbbell? Don't cute women take their
cute pink little dumbbells and jog outside to feel exercised?
Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's >>>>>>> not a
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>>>>> understood
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>>>>> weaklings who
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>>> convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by
the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>>>>
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>>>>
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>>>> cabal.
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> accept
curved space for a second.
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>>>> parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>>>>> for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and
recognized him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They >>>>>>>> will
never intersect.
surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. >>>>>> It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>>> turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you)
Still confused Woz?
No, Pyt.
Still you are.
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
does Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
does Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
You might have noticed that I make it a habit
of never replying to your silly rants.
I'll make an exception for once,
because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
who might stray in here.
Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.
It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
by definition,
Jan
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
does Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
You might have noticed that I make it a habit
of never replying to your silly rants.
I'll make an exception for once,
because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
who might stray in here.
Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.
It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
by definition,
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 10:39:19 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
does Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
You might have noticed that I make it a habit
of never replying to your silly rants.
I'll make an exception for once,
because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
who might stray in here.
Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.
The Pythagoras theorem is just that. Euclidean geometry is defined by
axioms or self-evident and unquestionable truths upon which all theorems
are derived. Not the other way around.
It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
by definition,
All other geometries are mappings based on Euclidean geometry, if we are talking engineering sense.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 10:39:19 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
does Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
You might have noticed that I make it a habit
of never replying to your silly rants.
I'll make an exception for once,
because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
who might stray in here.
Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.
The Pythagoras theorem is just that. Euclidean geometry is defined by
axioms or self-evident and unquestionable truths upon which all theorems
are derived. Not the other way around.
What is axiom, and what is theorem,
is in some cases merely a matter of taste.
The // axiom-theorem is a case in point.
You can take it as an axiom, and prove Pythagoras,
or you can take Pythagoras, and prove the //-theorem.
And FYI, the // axiom was never accepted as 'self-evident',
by the most mathematicians.
There have been lots of attempts to prove it from the other axioms,
until Gauss and others proved that this is a futile excercise,
by showing that it is an independent axiom that you can leave or take.
It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
by definition,
All other geometries are mappings based on Euclidean geometry, if we are
talking engineering sense.
The // axiom/theorem has nothing to do with engineering. [1]
OTOH, Pythagoras does,
Jan
[1] Engineers don't build infinitely large structures.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 505 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 46:37:10 |
| Calls: | 9,920 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,801 |
| Messages: | 6,347,404 |