On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:04:35 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 11:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds.
> It depends on the needed accuracy.
>
> For example, if a train moves at 100 km/hr and a passenger fires a gun
> with a muzzle velocity of 1000 km/hr forward, calculate the ground speed
> of the bullet using Newtonian mechanics and again using SR.
> >
> > HOWEVER, IT CAN STILL BE DETECTED AT SLOWER SPEEDS.
> So you admit it can be detected! So you admit relativity is real!

Of course your epidemic hysteria is real, stupid Mike.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.

Logic has NOTHING to do with it. Relativity is not exactly logical, but if you want to overturn it, only evidence counts.

Evidence rules... got any?

So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!

On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
>
> Logic has NOTHING to do with it

Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
insane religion, Al.

> So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!

Some other cults were holding much longer.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
measuring t'=t in improper seconds.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:42:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> >
> > Logic has NOTHING to do with it
> Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
> insane religion, Al.
> > So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
> Some other cults were holding much longer.
> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
> measuring t'=t in improper seconds.

Woz, my dog knows more physics than you do... and he has been dead for a number of years now...

On 08-July-23 1:52 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
>>> I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source.
>>>
>>> Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds.
>>>
>> You seem unable to post without blundering.
>>
>> Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is
>> that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics
>> is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a
>> relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and
>> Newtonian mechanics is not small.
>>
>> Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the
>> measurement.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> I was repeating what the defenders of relativity here say that it only applies at relativistic speeds so it doesn't apply to the MMX. But it does.

Who, specifically, has claimed that relativity doesn't apply to MMX.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:42:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> > >
> > > Logic has NOTHING to do with it
> > Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
> > insane religion, Al.
> > > So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
> > Some other cults were holding much longer.
> > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> > by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
> > measuring t'=t in improper seconds.
> Woz, my dog knows more physics than you do...

Al, knowing your inconsistent idiocies makes
no advantage in anything. Maybe except barking.

On 2023-07-07 19:06:04 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 07/07/2023 à 20:36, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
>
>> If light does not share the velocity of the source all that is needed
>> is ordinary negative additive velocity equation: sqrt of V^2 - v^2.
>> Many critics of relativity have singled out one part and shown it is
>> not necessary without realizing all of it is.
>
> With regard to relativistic velocities and their additions: why not
> believe Dr. Hachel

"Dr." Hachel? You've been coy about where you did your 22 years of
teaching and in what capacity, but maybe now you can tell us where you
got your doctorate and what the title of your thesis was? There are
certainly people here with real doctorates in physics (Jan Lodder and
Sylvia Else seem likely candidates, amongst others), but who don't
boast about them. I'll only be willing to call you "Dr." Hachel if you
answer the simple question.

As to your own question (why not believe "Dr." Hachel?) the answer is
simple: because "Dr." Hachel has made it abundantly clear that he has a
severe case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 2023-07-07 18:30:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
>
>> Relativity is not logical, so it is not science.
>
> The theory of relativity does not resist thinkers like the dictator
> Hachel (that's me).
>
> One cannot constantly deceive a whole people.
> Some things become visible, like theoretical contradictions or
> experimental oddities that make the whole dogma false if the basis of
> the reasoning remains true.
>
> The bases are the Poincaré transformations.
>
> Dogma is what has been built on it and tons of falsehoods added.
>
> It's a shame that the cranks hit where they shouldn't. The weak point
> of the theory is the apparent realtivist speeds. They are not
> compatible with the notion of covariance, which is a shame.
>
> It is also a pity that we do not develop enough, experimental
> criticisms like the work of Aspect which prove that Dr. Hachel is right.
>
> I remain convinced that the French school is the master school in terms
> of relativity (Poincaré, Aspect, Hachel

Golly. He really does think he belongs in the same list as Poincaré. I
doubt whether Poincaré would agree.

> ) and not the Angli-Saxon school (Einstein

Einstein was German, not "Anglo-Saxon".

> , Hawking, etc...) which has deflected the current much more than carry
> it further.
>
> R.H.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 09:31:23 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-07 18:30:23 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
> > Le 07/07/2023 à 20:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> >
> >> Relativity is not logical, so it is not science.
> >
> > The theory of relativity does not resist thinkers like the dictator
> > Hachel (that's me).
> >
> > One cannot constantly deceive a whole people.
> > Some things become visible, like theoretical contradictions or
> > experimental oddities that make the whole dogma false if the basis of
> > the reasoning remains true.
> >
> > The bases are the Poincaré transformations.
> >
> > Dogma is what has been built on it and tons of falsehoods added.
> >
> > It's a shame that the cranks hit where they shouldn't. The weak point
> > of the theory is the apparent realtivist speeds. They are not
> > compatible with the notion of covariance, which is a shame.
> >
> > It is also a pity that we do not develop enough, experimental
> > criticisms like the work of Aspect which prove that Dr. Hachel is right..
> >
> > I remain convinced that the French school is the master school in terms
> > of relativity (Poincaré, Aspect, Hachel
>
> Golly. He really does think he belongs in the same list as Poincaré. I
> doubt whether Poincaré would agree.

I doubt it too, but I don't have any doubts that he
didn't agree with your insane bunch about rejecting
basic [Euclidean] math. He's written it very clearly,
you know.

On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 06:26:34 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 07-July-23 5:19 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Those who, like Einstein, claimed the lack of an ether wind meant light speed is constant, conflated two quite different things. Therefore, by means of elementary logic and science everyone can understand better than Einstein. The authorities continue to make the same error, including many critics of relativity.
> He never made such a claim. But the repeated failure to detect it raised
> the possibility that the speed of light is constant, and Einstein
> explored that.
>
> You seem to want to argue that the fact that certain experiments did not
> prove that the speed of light is constant constitutes a proof that it is
> not.
>
> With such a level of muddled thinking, I have to wonder how you manage
> to function in the world.
>
True, but there is misinformation on both sides of the argument. As with the
claim made to discredit any emission theory: The claim being that Sagnac
cannot be explained by any emission theory. Apparently emission theory
predicts no path difference when Sagnac is rotated.
This is a false claim and is to wiki’s discredit that it publishes this fact free
anti emission fantasy.
We know Sagnac ring or gyro will measure rotation regardless of where
the axis of rotation is located. Some people like wiki or yourself, disingenuously
put it only at the axis only at Center of the ring and make the incorrect calculation
to back up their false claim that emission theory predicts no path difference.
But the fact is that if one puts the axis of rotation at or directly
below the source, then the source does not move and the experiment rotates
around the source. At which point the source frame is also the lab frame where
only the mirrors rotate.
And we know that if one calculates path difference in the lab frame, where
light is at c both for emission and SR, then we get a path difference predicted
not just for SR. But for emission theories like Ritz’s undulatory theory.

On 2023-07-07 18:05:14 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:37:13 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-07-07 14:00:21 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

>>> thanks to Pentcho Valev I have this: "Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
>>> resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of pa
>>> icles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as
>>> his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when
>>> thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hofmann, Relativity
>>> and Its Roots, p.92.

>> The quote does not even mention the Michelson-Morely experiment, so>
>> does not contradict what Volney said.

> The null result was from the MMX so you are obviously mistaken.

If you think so then point the expression "Michelson-Morely experiment" or
its synonym in the text quoted by Valev. Until then we may think that you
are just lying.

Mikko

Le 08/07/2023 à 09:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

>
> Einstein was German, not "Anglo-Saxon".

Les allemands sont plus saxons que les français.

La saxe est d'ailleurs en Allemagne.

Mais nous occultons le vrai problème. Le grand problème de l'époque
était la domination du monde
(il l'est encore aujourd'hui) par la culture anglo-saxonne.

Beaucoup reconnaissent aujourd'hui qu'on a donné un Nobel à Einstein
dans le seul but de le refuser à Poincaré.

Un scandale a eu lieu, les français ont quitté la salle.

Mis devant leur slip pas très propre, les gens du comité Nobel ont
alors rappelé les français, et déclaré
qu'effectivement, c'est Poincaré qui avait mérité le Nobel, et donc
qu'on ne pouvait pas attribuer le Nobel à Einstein pour la théorie de la
relativité. On trouva donc rapidement une demi-page d'Einstein portant
sur l'effet photo-électrique, et on lui attribua le Nobel pour ça.

Mais le but était simple : ne surtout pas attribuer un Nobel à la
France pour une théorie qui allait révolutionner le monde.

L'ennemi, c'était Poincaré.

R.H.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:28:49 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-July-23 4:16 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >>>>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
> >>>>>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It
> >>>>>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
> >>>>>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
> >>>>>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
> >>>>>>> constancy of the speed of light.
> >>>>>> Of course it didn't.
> >>>>>> Why kick down this open door once again?
> >>>>>> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>
> >>>>> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation.. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.
> >>
> >>>> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the
> >>>> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's
> >>>> what all the experimental results stated.
> >>>>
> >>>> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for
> >>>> belief in a constant speed of light?)
> >>> This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying?
> >>
> >> I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing.
> >> You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his
> >> ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments
> >> before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a
> >> constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves
> >> "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?"
> >>
> >> Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light
> >> as a constant. All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of
> >> light is some unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light
> >> (and the first postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result
> >> was SR.
> >>
> >> I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it.
> >> A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along..
> >>
> >> The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also
> >> doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to
> >> prove a certain form of aether didn't exist.
> > The physicists were wondering whether it shared the velocity of the source, and even Michelson in 1913, when he did his moving mirrors experiment (as I have mentioned here) thought it did not. Interpreting the experiments as showing light speed is constant does not mean they necessarily showed that. It is now clear they did not because simple additive velocities suffice, as has been shown by many scientists.
>
> If the simple addition of velocities explained it all, do you not think
> that the physicists of the time would have realised that?
>
> Of course, the results of Fizeau's experiment, performed several decades
> before MMX, were already a problem for a model based on simple addition.
>
> Sylvia.
Please see (if you are willing to look through the telescope): “Optical Fizeau Experiment with Moving Water is Explained without Fresnel's Hypothesis and Contradicts Special Relativity” “Abstract
Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies.. Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes Einstein's theory of relativity"

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:04:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 11:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds.
> It depends on the needed accuracy.
>
> For example, if a train moves at 100 km/hr and a passenger fires a gun
> with a muzzle velocity of 1000 km/hr forward, calculate the ground speed
> of the bullet using Newtonian mechanics and again using SR.
> >
> > HOWEVER, IT CAN STILL BE DETECTED AT SLOWER SPEEDS.
> So you admit it can be detected! So you admit relativity is real! Good
> start, you are on the way of being cured of delusional thinking.
The GPS corrects for the atomic clocks moving faster in lower gravity after inductively obtaining the data of 38 microseconds per day and then relativity pretends to explain it and claims that it includes 7 microseconds for SR. There is no use for GR or SR in this. This is called instrumental error not relativity.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:37:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> Logic has NOTHING to do with it. Relativity is not exactly logical, but if you want to overturn it, only evidence counts.
>
> Evidence rules... got any?
>
> So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
You're right. Logic has nothing to do with relativity nor relativity to do with logic. Thanks for admitting it. It's always been overturned in the minds of every logical person without any need to subject it to experiments that relativists willfully misconstrue. It's always been well-known to many highly intelligent scientists that relativity is nonsense. You guys always pretend your interpretation of the experiments proves anything at all.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:45:19 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:42:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> > >
> > > Logic has NOTHING to do with it
> > Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
> > insane religion, Al.
> > > So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
> > Some other cults were holding much longer.
> > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> > by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
> > measuring t'=t in improper seconds.
> Woz, my dog knows more physics than you do... and he has been dead for a number of years now...
Relativity is what top historian of science Stanley Jaki calls a "stillbirth of science."

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:56:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-July-23 1:52 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 8:50:10 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 08-July-23 1:28 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> >>> I recently read an article that described the accuracy of the MMX so that I am very sure it was probably not accurate enough to detect via the perpendicular beam if light does not share the velocity of the source.
> >>>
> >>> Relativity is only supposed to be applicable at relativistic speeds.
> >>>
> >> You seem unable to post without blundering.
> >>
> >> Relativity applies at all speeds. What I think you were trying to say is
> >> that the difference between Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics
> >> is small except at relativistic speeds. Indeed, that's what a
> >> relativistic speed is - a speed at which the difference between SR and
> >> Newtonian mechanics is not small.
> >>
> >> Whether the difference is measurable depends on the sensitivity of the
> >> measurement.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > I was repeating what the defenders of relativity here say that it only applies at relativistic speeds so it doesn't apply to the MMX. But it does.
> Who, specifically, has claimed that relativity doesn't apply to MMX.
>
> Sylvia.
The important point is that it should but it doesn't. If light did not share the velocity of the source the perpendicular beam would have been delayed..

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 10:00:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:42:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> > > >
> > > > Logic has NOTHING to do with it
> > > Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
> > > insane religion, Al.
> > > > So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
> > > Some other cults were holding much longer.
> > > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> > > by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
> > > measuring t'=t in improper seconds.
> > Woz, my dog knows more physics than you do...
> Al, knowing your inconsistent idiocies makes
> no advantage in anything. Maybe except barking.
Relativity is so illogical it is barking mad. It even denies relative velocities for light when all velocities are relative.

Volney wrote:

>>>> the capitalist america is delivering without shame,
>>>> *_cluster_munition_*, forbidden in over 120 countries,
>>> B̶u̶t̶ N̶a̶zi̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ 卐R̶u̶⚡︎⚡︎i̶a̶卐 i̶s̶n̶'t̶ o̶n̶e̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶m̶! I̶n̶ f̶a̶c̶t̶, n̶a̶zi̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ 卐
R̶u̶⚡︎⚡︎i̶a̶
>> shut up, fool. You don't know what a nazi is.
>
> I̶ d̶o̶ k̶n̶o̶w̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶'s̶ a̶ w̶h̶o̶l̶e̶ b̶u̶n̶c̶h̶ o̶f̶ N̶a̶zi̶s̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ 卐K̶r̶e̶m̶l̶i̶n̶卐 r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ n̶o̶w̶.
> I̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ k̶n̶o̶w̶ t̶h̶e̶ b̶e̶s̶t̶ w̶a̶y̶ t̶o̶ "d̶e̶n̶a̶zi̶f̶y̶" U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ i̶s̶ f̶o̶r̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ F̶u̶h̶r̶e̶r̶, o̶n̶e̶
> 卐Владольф Путлер卐, t̶o̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶d̶r̶a̶w̶ a̶l̶l̶ h̶i̶s̶ t̶r̶o̶o̶p̶s̶ t̶o̶ t̶h̶e̶ 1994 b̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶
> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶ a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶d̶ t̶o̶.

the fucking nazi ukraine is not a country, idiot. It can't agree or
disagree in anything. It got partial self_dependence 1994 under special
condition, they violated. You fucking immigrant of america. You have
nothing to do in ukraine, europe and everywhere. You'll soon be kicked out
of all countries you occupied. Fuck off. You are a *_terrorist_country_*.

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:28:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:37:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> > Logic has NOTHING to do with it. Relativity is not exactly logical, but if you want to overturn it, only evidence counts.
> >
> > Evidence rules... got any?
> >
> > So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!

> You're right. Logic has nothing to do with relativity nor relativity to do with logic. Thanks for admitting it. It's always been overturned in the minds of every logical person without any need to subject it to experiments that relativists willfully misconstrue. It's always been well-known to many highly intelligent scientists that relativity is nonsense. You guys always pretend your interpretation of the experiments proves anything at all.

Although I know you think you understand what you thought I said, I don't think you realize that what you heard is not what I meant...

In sci.physics Nolberto Eliopoulos <looo@btoloene.pb> wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>>>>> the capitalist america is delivering without shame,
>>>>> *_cluster_munition_*, forbidden in over 120 countries,
>>>> B̶u̶t̶ N̶a̶zi̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ 卐R̶u̶⚡︎⚡︎i̶a̶卐 i̶s̶n̶'t̶ o̶n̶e̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶m̶! I̶n̶ f̶a̶c̶t̶, n̶a̶zi̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ 卐
> R̶u̶⚡︎⚡︎i̶a̶
>>> shut up, fool. You don't know what a nazi is.
>>
>> I̶ d̶o̶ k̶n̶o̶w̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶'s̶ a̶ w̶h̶o̶l̶e̶ b̶u̶n̶c̶h̶ o̶f̶ N̶a̶zi̶s̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ 卐K̶r̶e̶m̶l̶i̶n̶卐 r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ n̶o̶w̶.
>> I̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ k̶n̶o̶w̶ t̶h̶e̶ b̶e̶s̶t̶ w̶a̶y̶ t̶o̶ "d̶e̶n̶a̶zi̶f̶y̶" U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ i̶s̶ f̶o̶r̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ F̶u̶h̶r̶e̶r̶, o̶n̶e̶
>> 卐Владольф Путлер卐, t̶o̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶d̶r̶a̶w̶ a̶l̶l̶ h̶i̶s̶ t̶r̶o̶o̶p̶s̶ t̶o̶ t̶h̶e̶ 1994 b̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶
>> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶ a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶d̶ t̶o̶.
>
> the fucking nazi ukraine is not a country, idiot. It can't agree or
> disagree in anything. It got partial self_dependence 1994 under special
> condition, they violated. You fucking immigrant of america. You have
> nothing to do in ukraine, europe and everywhere. You'll soon be kicked out
> of all countries you occupied. Fuck off. You are a *_terrorist_country_*.

Kiev founded 482.
Moscow founded 1142.
First Russian conquest of Ukraine 1654.

Russia has ALWAYS been an asshole, imperialistic, warmonger.

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:43:00 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:28:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:37:55 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> > > Logic has NOTHING to do with it. Relativity is not exactly logical, but if you want to overturn it, only evidence counts.
> > >
> > > Evidence rules... got any?
> > >
> > > So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
>
> > You're right. Logic has nothing to do with relativity nor relativity to do with logic. Thanks for admitting it. It's always been overturned in the minds of every logical person without any need to subject it to experiments that relativists willfully misconstrue. It's always been well-known to many highly intelligent scientists that relativity is nonsense. You guys always pretend your interpretation of the experiments proves anything at all.
> Although I know you think you understand what you thought I said, I don't think you realize that what you heard is not what I meant...
Sorry, but my siesta is over, and it's time for something serious.

On 7/8/2023 1:33 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 10:00:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:42:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic has NOTHING to do with it
>>>> Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
>>>> insane religion, Al.
>>>>> So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
>>>> Some other cults were holding much longer.
>>>> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
>>>> by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
>>>> measuring t'=t in improper seconds.
>>> Woz, my dog knows more physics than you do...
>> Al, knowing your inconsistent idiocies makes
>> no advantage in anything. Maybe except barking.

> Relativity is so illogical it is barking mad. It even denies relative velocities for light when all velocities are relative.

Nobody cares whether you're barking mad. Scientists care about the
results of experimental evidence and scientific observations. Do you
have any actual evidence that relativity is wrong? Evidence rules, every
crank here drools.

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:07:46 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/8/2023 1:33 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 10:00:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:42:47 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 06:37:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:07:31 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyone with reasoning capabilities can understand relativity is a joke and a swindle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Logic has NOTHING to do with it
> >>>> Right, logic has NOTHING to do with your
> >>>> insane religion, Al.
> >>>>> So far, no one has been able to overturn in, for over 100 years... and I doubt very much that it is going to be you!
> >>>> Some other cults were holding much longer.
> >>>> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> >>>> by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep
> >>>> measuring t'=t in improper seconds.
> >>> Woz, my dog knows more physics than you do...
> >> Al, knowing your inconsistent idiocies makes
> >> no advantage in anything. Maybe except barking.
>
> > Relativity is so illogical it is barking mad. It even denies relative velocities for light when all velocities are relative.
> Nobody cares whether you're barking mad. Scientists care about the
> results of experimental evidence and scientific observations. Do you
> have any actual evidence that relativity is wrong? Evidence rules, every
> crank here drools.
You have your head in the sand.

Jim Pennino wrote:

>> the fucking nazi ukraine is not a country, idiot. It can't agree or
>> disagree in anything. It got partial self_dependence 1994 under special
>> condition, they violated. You fucking immigrant of america. You have
>> nothing to do in ukraine, europe and everywhere. You'll soon be kicked
>> out of all countries you occupied. Fuck off. You are a
>> *_terrorist_country_*.
>
> Kiev founded 482. Moscow founded 1142.
> First Russian conquest of Ukraine 1654.

kiev and "ukraine" are Russian, you fucking imbecile. Read wikipedia.
About 87% of ukraine is Russian population Christians. The khazars of vest
want to steal a country of Russians enslaving them. Enslaved to the khazar
nazis since before 2014. A few khazars walking in north, decolorates their
skin pigments and now they they are "arians". You stupid uneducated piece
of shit.