Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.

Time does not dilate.

2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.

Length does not contract.

3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.

Space does not curve.

4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.

Parallel lines do not meet.

Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

Yes but it is profitable for the careerist in our world of lies run by
liars.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

BertieTaylor: Thanks. Yes, the prestige mills called universities sell
what is considered prestigious even when it is ridiculous, as relativity
is. When I confront the relativists with such logical criticisms, they
cannot grapple with them and respond in any way other than ad hominem
attacks on me.

I am reminded of an article I once read in Skeptical Inquirer by the
highly reputed scientist Massimo Pigliucci, who I admire for his
stoicism books. It is called "What's so bad about Ad Hoc Hypotheses?"
and is a reply to an article by a person wanting to dismiss the very
concept of ad hoc. That is, "On Ad Hoc Hypotheses*"
Author(s): J. Christopher Hunt
Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 1-14.

Length contraction and time dilation were immediately recognized as very
ad hoc after they were proposed after the MME in 1987. This kept most
scientists before Einstein from asserting them as literal realities.
Pigliucci maintains the concept is quite valid. I suggest it be
steel-manned, not as "making things up" but as thinking of exceptions to
the rules (really new sub-rules) that may or may not be confirmed.
However, in the case of these concepts in relativity, they are both ad
hoc and reification fallacy, making them pure nonsense.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
BertieTaylor: Thanks. Yes, the prestige mills called universities sell
what is considered prestigious even when it is ridiculous, as relativity
is. When I confront the relativists with such logical criticisms, they
cannot grapple with them and respond in any way other than ad hominem
attacks on me.
I am reminded of an article I once read in Skeptical Inquirer by the
highly reputed scientist Massimo Pigliucci, who I admire for his
stoicism books. It is called "What's so bad about Ad Hoc Hypotheses?"
and is a reply to an article by a person wanting to dismiss the very
concept of ad hoc. That is, "On Ad Hoc Hypotheses*"
Author(s): J. Christopher Hunt
Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 1-14.
Length contraction and time dilation were immediately recognized as very
ad hoc after they were proposed after the MME in 1987. This kept most
scientists before Einstein from asserting them as literal realities.
Pigliucci maintains the concept is quite valid. I suggest it be
steel-manned, not as "making things up" but as thinking of exceptions to
the rules (really new sub-rules) that may or may not be confirmed.
However, in the case of these concepts in relativity, they are both ad
hoc and reification fallacy, making them pure nonsense.

Absolutely. No self-respecting scientist can support the extraordinary
nonsense of relativity. Unfortunately it still rules. What could be more
shameful.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

Relativity is perfectly compatible with elementary and advanced logic,

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction,

That does not prevent us from talking about it.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
this necessarily involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical
nonsense.

No, it does not. The expression "time dilation" has its own meaning
that does not follow from the meanings of "time" and "dilation".

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time does not dilate.

That does not follow from logic or anything mentioned above.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

Relativity is perfectly compatible with elementary and advanced logic,

An idiot will assert ignoring the proof of
the opposite.

Post by Mikko
That does not follow from logic or anything mentioned above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard
From about 20 times mentioned here - none
dilates. You're just living in a world of
your gedanken delusions.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mikko:
Re: "> Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

Relativity is perfectly compatible with elementary and advanced logic,

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction,

That does not prevent us from talking about it.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
this necessarily involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical
nonsense.

No, it does not. The expression "time dilation" has its own meaning
that does not follow from the meanings of "time" and "dilation".

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time does not dilate.

That does not follow from logic or anything mentioned above.

--
Mikko"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: "Relativity is perfectly compatible with elementary and advanced
logic,"
You have only made an assertion while I have explained how.

"That does not prevent us from talking about it."
That was not my argument.

"No, it does not. The expression "time dilation" has its own meaning
that does not follow from the meanings of "time" and "dilation"."
How mystifying! Pray, tell what it means!

That time does not dilate follows from the fact that it is an
abstraction. Since time is a comparison of rates of change, it involves
a standard unit of measure that cannot dilate. Just as meters do not
dilate time does not.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

The theory describes measurements. Unless you want to go down a quantum
mechanics rabbit hole, there can be no question that measurements are real.

Sylvia.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

The theory describes measurements. Unless you want to go down a quantum
mechanics rabbit hole, there can be no question that measurements are real.

Of course the relativistic measurements
are not real - they're gedanken. Fabricated.
In the meantime in the real world - anyone
can check GPS, the measurements are t'=t
(with the precision of an acceptable error)
like they always were.
Sorry, lady.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Sylvia: That's the whole point. Real measurements do not dilate. That is
a reification fallacy.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

The theory describes measurements. Unless you want to go down a quantum
mechanics rabbit hole, there can be no question that measurements are real.

Yes but their analysis is wrong, most notably for the MMI.

Arindam pointed out in a 2005 paper that if the Earth moves then the MMI
experiment actually shows that light speed MUST vary with the speed of
its emitter to get the nulls.

Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Sylvia Else: Sure, the units of measure are real and don't dilate.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Sylvia Else: So you think that clocks functioning at different rates in
differing conditions mean time itself does?

[gharnagel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.

Since time is an "abstraction": time does not exist

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.

Since extension in space is an "abstraction": space does not exist

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks
should be.” -- Albert Einstein

"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to
believe what is proved." -- Galileo Galilei

“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall
perish by it.” -- Samuel Butler

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.

Since time is an "abstraction": time does not exist

Oh, just some "logic" of a poor fanatic idiot.

Post by gharnagel
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks
should be.” -- Albert Einstein

Poor idiot never understood anything.

Post by gharnagel
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall
perish by it.” -- Samuel Butler

That's why Harrie and his fellow cultists
don't use any logic.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

gharnagel: Thank you. Very good, other than the crowing.

Units of measure must not dilate to serve as a standard. If all rates
of change were to change in unison, time could conceivably change. If it
does not include all rates of change, it is not time itself. Nothing can
cause all rates of change to change in unison, especially not relative
motion per se, as relativity claims. The same goes for length
contraction.

Space does not curve because it has no substance.

By accepting the LT, relativists implicitly embrace the ether. Time
dilation and length contraction are part of the LT, which is superfluous
without an ether.

Einstein should have followed his own advice.

It is harmful to make questioning alleged proofs a heresy. Doing so
would just make those "proofs" a religion.

Those who live by the sword die by it.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

gharnagel: When one infers from a clock running at a different rate in
space to time doing so, this is is an illogical, unwarranted inference,
no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

gharnagel: I'm listening to a beautiful song called Guantanamera. It has
this beautiful line: "A small mountain stream of creative thought is
more pleasing to me than an ocean of academic bullshit."

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by gharnagel

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic
1. Time dilation: Since time is an abstraction, this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.

Since time is an "abstraction": time does not exist

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Time does not dilate.
2. Length contraction: Length is an abstraction.
Length does not contract.

Since extension in space is an "abstraction": space does not exist

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
3. Curved space: Space is an abstraction.
Space does not curve.
4. Parallel lines meeting: Reifies space.
Parallel lines do not meet.
Conclusion: It is illogical to believe in relativity.

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks
should be.” -- Albert Einstein
"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to
believe what is proved." -- Galileo Galilei
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall
perish by it.” -- Samuel Butler

Length contraction or time dilation? No, length contraction and time
dilation: space contraction.

Hey, if there isn't aether theory in relativity theory,
at least thusly the space can go along the frames,
for rigid bodies and finite regions.

Curved spacetime? Not so much, it's pretty well-established that
the cosmological constant in the gravitational field equations,
it's a mathematical infinitesimal, i.e. vanishing yet non-zero.
Spacetime curves - it's flat.

Geometry is plainly enough that it's all conformal mappings
in continuous transformations, sometimes that's easier to
visualize or write as "according to perspective and projection",
looking Euclidean either and both ways, while it's, yet
looking Euclidean either and both ways.

Then, geometry for motion needs projective and perspective,
the concepts, curved spacetime the form is also corrected thusly,
and space contraction is rather real and still of course is
quite an entirely a theory with severe abstraction, mechanical
reduction, absolutes and ideals, and a relative perspective or
projection of motion, as with regards to a relativity theory
like Einstein's "GR and then also SR: a Relativity Theory",
that being the same theory itself, then though that many
popularizations and wrongful extrapolations the overbroad
(non-physical) mathematical models, are NOT "Relativity Theory".


What you got there is "non-physical extrapolations of some
classical models of a superclassical physics after Relativity
Theory", not, "Relativity Theory", about absolutes and ideals,
itself.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Gary & EVERYONE:

Logical Critique of Relativity Improved & Revised

A. Curved space:

Parallel lines have not been and can never be proven to meet.
Unambiguously, that would involve the reification fallacy.
Therefore, space does not curve, and the universe is not spherical.
Space is a vacuum, so it cannot curve.

B. Time & Length:

1. Time dilation:

This would require something that would affect all processes equally so
that they would change their rate in unison. Otherwise, it would cause
some rates to be altered, not time itself dilating. Relativity claims
relative motion per se causes this. There is nothing about that that
could cause it. Many factors influence the rates, but not one.

Time is a comparison of rates of change requiring one consistent
standard of comparison.

This standard of comparison is an abstraction. Changing this necessarily
involves the reification fallacy, making it illogical nonsense.

Time does not dilate.

2. Length contraction: Like time, for length itself to change equally
for everything in unison requires a reasonable cause. Relative motion is
nothing of the kind.

Length does not contract.


C. Therefore, It is illogical to believe in relativity.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Gary & everyone: Physicists will never be able to derive relativity
logically. "...natural selection becomes not just a natural law but a
logical law! That is, it looks like given certain conditions, natural
selection logically has to follow. This is a more powerful concept of
natural law than the laws of physics themselves-- after all, physicists
have (so far) not been able to derive quantum mechanics or relativity
from logic....the universe could have been otherwise." - Massimo
Pigliucci "Historical vs. Nomological Sciences" Skeptical Inquirer
Jan/Feb 2011.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Gary & everyone: Physicists will never be able to derive relativity
logically. "...natural selection becomes not just a natural law but a
logical law! That is, it looks like given certain conditions, natural
selection logically has to follow. This is a more powerful concept of
natural law than the laws of physics themselves-- after all, physicists
have (so far) not been able to derive quantum mechanics or relativity
from logic....the universe could have been otherwise." - Massimo
Pigliucci "Historical vs. Nomological Sciences" Skeptical Inquirer
Jan/Feb 2011.

No, of course not.
Nothing in science has ever been derived logically.
Logic can at best tell you that a certain theory is not self-consistent.

Math is not physics,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Gary & everyone: Physicists will never be able to derive relativity
logically. "...natural selection becomes not just a natural law but a
logical law! That is, it looks like given certain conditions, natural
selection logically has to follow. This is a more powerful concept of
natural law than the laws of physics themselves-- after all, physicists
have (so far) not been able to derive quantum mechanics or relativity
from logic....the universe could have been otherwise." - Massimo
Pigliucci "Historical vs. Nomological Sciences" Skeptical Inquirer
Jan/Feb 2011.

No, of course not.
Nothing in science has ever been derived logically.
Logic can at best tell you that a certain theory is not self-consistent.

Likje The Shit of your insane guru.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.

Relativity does predict. An uninterpreted formal theory does not
predict but theories of physics always have an interpretation
(that is what "of physics" means).

Relativity alone does not predict very much. But it can be combined
with various other theories and those combinations may predict what
either theory alone can't, e.g. that gold is yellow.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.

Relativity does predict.

Not even consistently.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul: Logic can tell you when a theory does not predict anything.

Your error. Logic can at best tell you that a theory is not
self-consistent.
Like in Galileo versus Aristotle on falling objects.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity predicts nothing. It is not even a theory.

That depends on what you want 'relativity' and 'theory' to mean.
Since you don't specify that you are merely spouting propaganda,

Jan

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

No quoted text, no reply,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

No quoted text, no reply,

Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

No quoted text, no reply,

Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?

Yes. The LCC entity often picks up some trigger word to go of on a rant
of its own, with little or no relation to the input.

It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

Jan

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

No quoted text, no reply,

Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?

Yes. The LCC entity often picks up some trigger word to go of on a rant
of its own, with little or no relation to the input.
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

No quoted text, no reply,

Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?

Yes. The LCC entity often picks up some trigger word to go of on a rant
of its own, with little or no relation to the input.
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.

I did read somewhere about some succes using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.

But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at
<https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots>

Jan

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.

I did read somewhere about some success using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.
But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at
<https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots>

Fascinating!

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.

I did read somewhere about some success using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.
But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at
<https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots>

Fascinating!

Yes, but not altogether surprising.
Much crackpottery and 'complot thinking' is primarily
a revolt against authoritiy.
(see this forum for some examples)

A human talking to them reinforces that,
because defending the authority is automatically interpreted
as identifying with it,
hence being part of the things to be revolted against.
An AI has no such handicap.

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by J. J. Lodder
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.

I did read somewhere about some success using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.
But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at
<https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots>

Fascinating!

Yes, but not altogether surprising.
Much crackpottery and 'complot thinking' is primarily
a revolt against authoritiy.
(see this forum for some examples)

Or take a look at your idiot guru.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity.

True, the worshippers of The Shit will
die hard.

[gharnagel]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity.

True, the worshippers of The Shit will
die hard.

"Always keep your words soft and sweet, just in case you have
to eat them." -- Anon.

[Bertietaylor]

Which honest scientist supports the e=mcc nonsense?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

J.J.: And Whoopi Goldberg won't have sex with me!

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

No quoted text, no reply,

Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?

You mean Linguist Burse's crowd of usenet bots?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

J.J.: No predictions, no reply.