Discussion:
How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles?
Add Reply
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 12:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
The Starmaker
2025-01-23 18:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-23 18:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
_You_ may not like it, but I call them "Capones." :)
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 21:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 22:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-23 22:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 21:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
You did not understand. Even Paul recently acknowledged that space is
not a surface. Then, we should understand that space does not curve.
Claiming it does is an unmistakable example of the reification fallacy,
where an abstraction is confused with the physical. The derivation of
the doubling is a clear case of this, making it an invalid derivation.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 22:11:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
surface and its not curved.
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-25 00:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-25 21:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
Python
2025-01-25 21:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-25 21:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"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.
Python
2025-01-25 21:23:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
It doesn't matter
It does.
Paul B. Andersen
2025-01-27 10:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Python
"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.
What an idiotic statement! :-D

Math does obviously not curve space.
In GR it is matter and energy that curve spacetime.
GR is a mathematical model which is able to predict what
will be measured in space and time in the real world.
That's the only point with theories of physics.
The validity of a theory depend on its ability to
correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.

GR is thoroughly tested and never falsified.


Remember this statement of yours?
"It is sad that you can't recognize that non-Euclidean geometry applied
to space is a reification fallacy because space is not a surface."

This rather funny statement of yours reveals that the only
non-Euclidean geometry you know is Gaussian geometry.

Loosely explained, Gaussian geometry is about surfaces in 3-dimentinal
Euclidean space. The shape of the surface is defined by a function
f(x,y,z) where x,y,z are Cartesian coordinates.

Note that we must use three coordinates to describe a 2-dimentional
surface.

----

Riemannian geometry is more general.
Loosely explained, Riemannian geometry is about manifolds (spaces)
of any dimensions. The "shape" of the manifold is described by
the metric.

The metric describes the length of a line element.

The metric describing a flat 2D surface is:
ds² = dx² + dy² (if Pythagoras is valid, the surface is flat)

The metric describing a 2D spherical surface is:
ds² = dθ² + sin²θ⋅dφ²

Note that only two coordinates are needed to describe the surface.
The coordinates are _in_ the surface, not in a 3D-space.

----------

The metric for a "flat 3D-space" (Euclidean space) is:
ds² = dx² + dy² + dy² (Pythagoras again!)

The metric for a 3D-sphere is:
ds² = dr² + r²dθ² + r²sin²θ⋅dφ²

Note that only three coordinates are needed to describe
the shape of a 3D space.

----------

In spacetime geometry there is a four dimensional manifold called
spacetime. The spacetime metric has four coordinates, one temporal
and four spatial.

The metric for a static flat spacetime is:
ds² = − (c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz²

If ds² is positive, the line element ds is space-like,
If ds² is negative, the line element ds is time-like.

In the latter case it is better to write the metric:
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²

If there is a mass present (Sun, Earth) spacetime will be curved.

The metric for spacetime in the vicinity of a spherical mass is:
See equation (2) in
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

Note that there are four coordinates, t, r, θ and ϕ

--------------------

So to your parallel lines which you claim have to meet in curved space.

Two points:
1. In spacetime geometry, it is spacetime that is curved.

2. What is a "line"? In Euclidean geometry we would say
"a straight line". A more precise expression is a "geodesic line".

In spacetime geometry the definition of "geodesic line" is rather
complicated.
But all free falling objects, including photons, are moving along
geodesic lines. So let us consider light beams (the trajectory of
a photon).

Far out in space, where spacetime is quite flat,
we have two parallel light beams.
These light beam pass on either side of the Sun,
where spacetime is curved.
The light beams are gracing the Sun, and will be
gravitationally deflected by 1.75".
The light beams will then meet 274 AU after they passed the Sun.

Parallel geodesic lines may meet.

Conclusion:
If mass is present, spacetime is curved.

But remember, spacetime is an entity in the mathematical model GR.

It is meaningless to ask if "spacetime" really exist.
The point is that the mathematical GR correctly predicts
what will be measured in the real space and time.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-25 21:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"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, poor stinker).
Python
2025-01-25 22:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"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" and Poincaré would punch
you in the face.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker
Nice signature.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-25 22:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"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.
Post by Python
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.

BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic?
Still no answer, poor stinker? For sure,
spitting and slandering the enemies of your
church is much easier than answerring their
questions, isn't it?
Python
2025-01-25 22:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Post by Maciej Wozniak
BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic?
If you want to know, learn. Information sources are free.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Still no answer, poor stinker? For sure,
spitting and slandering the enemies of your
church is much easier than answerring their
questions, isn't it?
Why would people lost time in trying to educate, in vain, idiotic kooks of
your kind Woz?

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? :-)
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-26 06:47:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
Because you say so? I checked: every relativistic
knight is rejecting Euclid. And many of them are
doctoring "evidence" against Euclid.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic?
If you want to know, learn.
I did. You didn't, so still no answer.
For sure, spitting and slandering the
enemies of your church is much easier
than answerring their questions, isn't
it, poor stinker?
Post by Python
I'm sad for nurses who have to clean your dirty pants every morning. But
there is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately.
slander
noun
1
: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and
damage another's reputation
Post by Python
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
It is good enough, Pyt.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-26 14:42:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
He does not know that if the observable times are equal over an equal
distance, the proper times will be equal.
He does not know a lot of stuff that I patiently explained to him on
French forums.
He does not even know how to explain what a complex number is and why
there is a real root and an imaginary root.
He is crazy.
Then he asks others to show their diploma, as if you could not buy a
diploma.
He is laughable.
Even I laugh.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-26 20:02:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Of course he is unable; if a relatyivistic idiot
was able to understand the difference between his
delusions and the reality - he wouldn't be a
relativistic idiot.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-26 14:34:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
J'aimerais connaître la tienne en critique de l'intelligence humaine.

Ca doit casser des barreaux de chaise.

R.H.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-27 05:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
Why not you first. What is yours?
The Starmaker
2025-01-25 22:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
While you are at it, ask him how many planets in our solar system...

only 3 year olds give an answer.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-26 14:31:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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...
Fields can curve while space cannot.
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
Python, the new Henri Poincaré just asking.

Le même qui n'est pas capable de pratiquer l'amour anal avec Hachel, et
qui se met à pleurer parce que c'est trop profond.

The new Henri Poincaré, qu'il disait.

R.H.
Python
2025-01-25 02:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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?
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-25 02:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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?
I have to admit that plotting 4d fields scare me a bit... I don't know
where to plot a 4d point aka, a point with a non-zero 4th dimensional
component. So, I just plot the 3d components. The fun part is that
attractors in the 4d make some radically interesting formations wrt
their 3d plotted counterparts wrt the 4d vectors the occur during
iteration.......
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-25 21:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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?
What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
Python
2025-01-25 21:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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?
What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
Because you say so? LOL.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-25 21:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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?
What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
Because you say so? LOL.
That is not what I said. Why is it not a reification fallacy? Because
you say so? It is, by definition, a reification fallacy because it
confuses the abstract with the physical. What are you saying is curved?
Vacuum? A field?
Python
2025-01-25 21:47:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Python
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
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.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
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
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?
What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
Because you say so? LOL.
That is not what I said. Why is it not a reification fallacy? Because
you say so? It is, by definition, a reification fallacy because it
confuses the abstract with the physical. What are you saying is curved?
Vacuum? A field?
How could you know? You are uneducated in math, and in physics.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-26 14:33:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
How could you know? You are uneducated in math, and in physics.
Nice signature.

R.H.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 21:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
The Starmaker
2025-01-24 05:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
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?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 05:45:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
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.
The Starmaker
2025-01-24 06:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
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.
Is it 8 or 9?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-24 06:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
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.
Not taking sides is in fact taking sides with the prevailing vote...8.


That is the number of how many planets You believe there in our solar
system.


You have uncritically and thoughtlessly embrace this idea without a
second thought that
there are 8 planets in out solor system. This is very pathetic, slavish,
and avoidable of you.

Shame on you, Clark.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-24 18:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
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.
Not taking sides is in fact taking sides with the prevailing vote...8.
That is the number of how many planets You believe there in our solar
system.
You have uncritically and thoughtlessly embrace this idea without a
second thought that
there are 8 planets in out solor system. This is very pathetic, slavish,
and avoidable of you.
Shame on you, Clark.
Could be that he's standing on his own pure stomach gas cause he doesn't
believe Earth is a planet at all. Sun _does_ orbit around Earth, even
within each 24 hour period. The evidence is right there to see!
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 21:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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!
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
what sells tuition over teaching good science is not a conspiracy
theory. It's just a profitable thing to do when people want to purchase
prestige instead of knowledge.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 22:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Of course, it is not a conspiracy theory to understand that universities
are prestige mills selling prestige for tuition. This is proven by the
fact that their marketing has persuaded people to pay fortunes to be
taught ignorant fallacies as sophisticated science. 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?
Physfitfreak
2025-01-24 18:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
The Starmaker
2025-01-24 18:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-24 18:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
The Starmaker
2025-01-24 20:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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????
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-26 21:16:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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?
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 22:26:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
There is a double standard when claims of having proved parallel lines
do not meet are regarded as ridiculous, while implicitly assuming they
do is viewed as brilliant. This proves that some absurdly stupid ideas
have been marketed so slickly as to put them over on almost everybody to
the profit of universities and big science.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 22:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Would you like to step outside for a minute?
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-23 22:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Jim Pennino
2025-01-23 23:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 04:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Do you think the experiments have proven that parallel lines meet? They
would have to meet for space to curve. You are not addressing the issue,
which is not the experiments but the derivation. Experiments cannot
prove the derivation is sound. I have shown it is not sound and cannot
predict. The Einstein equation merely differs from the Newtonian by
changing the "2" into a "4." The problem is that it is a non-Euclidean
curved space. That is fiction.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 04:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
test
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-24 21:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.

Einstein's derivation of the doubling involved the petitio principii of
presuming parallel lines meet to conclude space curves. Math cannot bend
space because space is not a surface. That would be the reification
fallacy. The math is non-Euclidean and only valid for surfaces other
than plane surfaces. Relativity predicts that if parallel lines meet,
then space is curved, and light is deflected by curved space. The
derivation is not valid because space does not bend.

Do you think the experiments have proven that parallel lines meet? They
would have to meet for space to curve. You are not addressing the issue,
which is not the experiments but the derivation. Experiments cannot
prove the derivation is sound. I have shown it is not sound and cannot
predict. Non-Euclidean math is well-known and irrelevant because it
cannot cause space to curve. The Einstein equation merely differs from
the Newtonian by
changing the "2" into a "4." The problem is that it is a non-Euclidean
curved space. That is fiction.
Jim Pennino
2025-01-24 22:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.
Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.
Clearly, you are a babbling kook.

*PLONK*
Thomas Heger
2025-01-24 08:06:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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
Physfitfreak
2025-01-24 18:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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
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.
Thomas Heger
2025-01-25 06:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Am Freitag000024, 24.01.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Physfitfreak:
...
Post by Physfitfreak
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
Don't know how you relate your reply to my statement.

i simply wanted to express, that it is not recommended to contradict
what you are requested to believe from textbooks, tv or your teacher.

You should simply not, say yes and repeat when asked to, but never
actually believe a single word of that crap.

Actually it's all fraud and fake and almost nothing is like what you are
told.

The relations of USA to EU is not quite related to this problem, but
maybe I should reply to that statement, too.

Germany, where I live, has lost too devastating wars against the USA
(mainly) assisted by their partners Russia and England (and partially
France).

Germans are sick of wars and have no intentions at all to participate in
any war whatsoever, which the USA, Russia or the UK wage anywhere upon
this planet against any nation.

We simply do not want wars, especially not with Russia and even more
especially not in favor of the Ukraine, because that was a corrupted
gangster paradise.

TH
The Starmaker
2025-01-24 18:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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
So tell us what you really think, How many planets are there in our
solar system?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-24 18:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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
So tell us what you really think, How many planets are there in our
solar system?
He's a castrated Sheep. What would he know.
Thomas Heger
2025-01-25 06:54:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by 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.

TH
The Starmaker
2025-01-25 17:44:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by 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.
Did you cut and paste that?


It's embarrassing isn't it? When you just revealed that you are tooo
afraid to say how many planets
are in our own solar system.

It better to keep it to yourself than let others know the cabal does
your thinking for you...

and it's worse if you cut and paste their answers.

It's embarrassing.



They think, therefore you are.


lemmings.


ugh
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Physfitfreak
2025-01-25 19:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
They think, therefore you are.
I like that. It can be taken as the definition of a cro-magnon human.
Loading...