On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:28:22 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:13:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]
> > >
> > > You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer prestige instead of knowledge.
> The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use, often.
Well, Pat, universities will accept tuition for teaching anything people imagine to be prestigious.

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:30:00 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > On 11/19/2023 12:53 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >>> "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > >>> We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. [etc.]
> > >>
> > >> You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having different geometries.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jan
> >
> > > The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.
> > Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to Jan's
> > post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?
> Foolish old Jan never got around to telling us what IS the point of curved geometry. Because he doesn't even know hizself.
It is only a reification fallacy.

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > >
> > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> >
> > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> >
> > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.

> Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.

And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!

You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:28:22 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> > > You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of having
>> > > different geometries. -- Jan
>> > You are living proof that universities are prestige mills that confer
>> > prestige instead of knowledge.
>> The above is a wonderful sentence that I shall both cherish and use,
>> often.
> Well, Pat, universities will accept tuition for teaching anything people
> imagine to be prestigious.

so true indeed, I almost was to say.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_‘𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝗘𝗨’_–_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗱𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁
Annalena Baerbock says there should be no “gray areas” in Europe
https://r%74.com/news/587988-baerbock-ukraine-strengthen-eu/

If EU needs Ukraine to strengthen the union it means 𝗘𝗨 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Yeah ...last two years of war prove it ...

Baerbock should focus on the homeless, poor in Germany. She is not a
minister in Ukraine, she is a minister in Germany...

Actually she said it in public! 𝗦𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲, what her voters in Germany
think.

HOW can a parasite strengthten anything?

The German people need 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲. But more
importantly they need to assess the checks and balances within their
institutions 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 after all
they have suffered in the name of Nazism.

Strengthen EU enslavement to US?

A 360 degree turn again. No more wacky backy for Annalena.

The ignorance and stupidity of this woman are quiet irritating.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:30:00 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> > >> You are barking a nonexistent tree. This is NOT the point of
>> > >> having different geometries. -- Jan
>> > > The only point of non-Euclidean geometry is to give a
>> > > diagrammatical illustration of deceitful math.
>> > Looks like poor Laurence is having a meltdown, spewing replies to
>> > Jan's post. Maybe Laurence thinks the tree really exists?
>> Foolish old Jan never got around to telling us what IS the point of
>> curved geometry. Because he doesn't even know hizself.
> It is only a reification fallacy.

There's ukraine and there's thugs. 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗵𝘂𝗴𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿_𝗶𝗻_𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘃, by a
𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿. What the thugs need 𝗶𝘀_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀. Ukraine needs is
for those thugs 𝘁𝗼_𝗯𝗲_𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱. Before they devaste Ukraine
completely trying to realize their personal dreams.

On Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 06:37:54 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:

> And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations,

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
idiots like you "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 20:45:49 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.11.2023 07:45, skrev Thomas Heger:
> > Am 22.11.2023 um 10:14 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> >> Den 22.11.2023 08:43, skrev Thomas Heger:
> >>>
> >>> On Earth we use a clock, a compass and an altimeter to define a
> >>> position.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This includes two angles, one distance (hight) and time.
> >>>
> >>> These angles are spherical angles, which are based on the planet we
> >>> live on and where we like to define positions.
> >>>
> >>> (The clock we need to find the longitude of our position.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> TH
>
> >>
> >> So you are talking about celestial navigation.
> >> I can assure you that the mathematics involved in
> >> celestial navigation is based on Euclidean geometry.
> >>
> >
> You didn't get the point?
>
> When you use a clock to find the longitude of your
> position, it is because you must have measured the direction
> to the Sun (or Moon or a star). Determining your position
> this way is geometry! Euclidean geometry!
> Celestial navigation as we know it would be impossible
> without Euclidean geometry.
> > Actually I think, that spherical coordinates make more sense than
> > Euclidean.
> See Volney's comment.
>
> You seem to think that a Cartesian coordinate system must be used
> in Euclidean geometry. That is nonsense. Spherical coordinates
> are used in celestial navigation. The geometry is still Euclidean.

Sure it is; only relativistic idiots are dumb enough to deny, and - as
seen - not even all of them.

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > >
> > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > >
> > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > >
> > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
>
> > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
>
> You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move.. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > >
> > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > >
> > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> >
> > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> >
> > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

> Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.

You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!

Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> > >
> > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> > >
> > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
> > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?
>
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
>
> Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
>
> Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
Explain how any of it is right!

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> > > >
> > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> > > >
> > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
> > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> >
> > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >
> > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
> >
> > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
> >
> > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,

> Explain how any of it is right!

That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:05:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Paul? Can you measure the difference between absolute and relative motion?
> At a motion black hole the atom competes with light. If light is absolute motion
> and the atom can compete how is the atom not having a form of absolute motion of
> its own?

Mitch, I'm pretty sure that if you have a functioning brain in your head you would take it out and play with it.

How can anyone write such drivel with a straight face?

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> > > > >
> > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
> > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> > >
> > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> > >
> > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
> > >
> > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
> > >
> > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
>
> > Explain how any of it is right!
> That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...
You have a child-like faith in the system.

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 7:22:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
> > > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> > > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> > > >
> > > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> > > >
> > > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
> > > >
> > > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
> > > >
> > > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
> >
> > > Explain how any of it is right!
> > That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...

> You have a child-like faith in the system.

A statement that only reinforces my claim. You remain completely clueless.

The system works. You do not understand this and reject it without cause.

Get a new hobby because this one is *way* beyond your comprehension.

On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

>> And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
>>
>> You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...

> Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.

Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so
your claim is false.

On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 01:29:38 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> > >
> > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> > >
> > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
> > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?
>
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.

Al, poor halfbrain, why would experiments be wrong?
It's just that being an idiot lacking any logic - you're
imagining they're supporting your idiocies. It's quite
ordinary of course, every fanatic idiot of the world
believes that everything is supporting his idiocies.

On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 08:03:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> >> And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> >>
> >> You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
>
> > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so

And unfortunately for you, in the meantime in the
real world forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep measuring t'=t..

> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place.. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science."
> > > > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
> > > > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
> > > > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
> > > > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day!
> > > > >
> > > > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
> > >
> > > > Explain how any of it is right!
> > > That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong.

That's not how science works, Al. Of course, you have no
clue as to how science works, and no surprise: science
is complicated and you're very dumb.

Volney wrote:

>> Relativity is not supported by any experiments because
>> self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
>
> Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so
> your claim is false.

except that 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 "𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆", but my
"𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹". That's what those
experiments are proving to exists in Physics.