On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 5:37:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:48:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:08:47 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 7:14:28 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:36:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > I understand the scientific method very well. Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments. Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments, and you cannot show otherwise, despite your constant blathering that you have done so. You have not. Not even close.
> > > > > > Imbecile, you contradict yourself as it correspond to a fucking retarded.
> > > > > > "Science is done by forming theories that are supported by evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments".
> > > > > > AND THEN WRITE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Relativity is widely supported by both observations and experiments."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In 1905, the cretin plagiarized another imbecile (Lorentz), who was supported by Poincaré since 1895 in order to obtain
> > > > > > his stupid formulation of length contraction, as suggested by FitzGerald in 1892, in order to explain the MM Experiment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So relativity was derived from a lunatic pseudo-theory WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN ANY FORM, and continues so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, generations of assholes saw an opportunity to become famous around this novelty, and started to find evidences AFTER the theory..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It took 17 years for the first cretin (Compton) to make a fraudulent experiment, claimed by all the cretins (like you) that needed to keep a job in
> > > > > > the new field (as yours, as a HS teacher of physics).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Start studying how to write coherent things, not things that are in conflict between them. It took 28 words for you to show everyone that you're
> > > > > > a drooling stupid.
> > > >
> > > > > If Paul was a High School teacher he couldn't do anything but read the text out loud without understanding it.
> > > > That is pretty big talk from a guy who has never even read a physics textbook! Larry, as a TA in my college days I occasionally taught a freshman astronomy class, so I have a pretty good bullshit meter when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, and *you* are clearly the chaff.
> >
> > > You have shown no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. I have no need to convince you or anyone hear. I have turned all the stones and found nothing of value in the relativists. Your defense of it is vapid. Bye bye, Heckler.
> > Larry, I have degrees in math, physics and astronomy. Sure, they were earned a very long time ago, but earned they were. You, on the other hand, have only your fantasies about relativity. I have read a LOT of textbooks, whereas you have not even read a single one. The reason you do not recognize any knowledge whatsoever is because you are completely clueless. You just don't know what you don't know and everyone can see this. If you don't want to respond to me anymore I can certainly understand why... you don't actually have any answers that make any sense. That's fine, don't respond... but I will continue to call bullshit when I see bullshit, and there isn't really anything you can do about that!
> >
> > If you find no value from any of the participants here, than why are you here at all? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Masochistic, perhaps? Do you also smack your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop? Inquiring minds want to know...
> >
> > Bye bye yourself, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out..

> As usual, you are only making appeals to "authority" instead of reason. Obviously, you're not capable of reasoning.

So, your "bye bye Paul" turns out to be a Big Lie! So much for your honesty! You have no concept of honesty... or reason!

On 11/28/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:48:47 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> The textbooks are very ignorant and stupid. They lied to you and told you an infinite universe has centers everywhere.
>> How would you know? You have never read one in your life! You don't have the scientific brains of an orange.
>>
>> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...

> They aren't claims. They are my own interpretation.

In other words, a claim.

> The accepted science is very ignorant.

Another claim.

On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

>> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours? No, I didn't think so...

> Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.

That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.

On 2023-11-30 05:19:39 +0000, Volney said:

> On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
>>> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours?
>>> No, I didn't think so...
>
>> Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
>> about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or
>> by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
> Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.

Yes. He made a big tactical error by using the word "opinions": can he
really be so ignorant of how science advances that he thinks it is
based on opinions?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 06:19:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
> Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies,
stupid Mike.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 08:42:04 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-11-30 05:19:39 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> >>> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of yours?
> >>> No, I didn't think so...
> >
> >> Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
> >> about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus or
> >> by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
> >
> > That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
> > Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
> Yes. He made a big tactical error by using the word "opinions": can he
> really be so ignorant of how science advances that he thinks it is
> based on opinions?

And can you really be so ignorant of how science advances
that you think it is not? Yes, you can, of course.

On 11/29/2023 11:19 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
>>> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of
>>> yours? No, I didn't think so...
>
>> Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
>> about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus
>> or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
> Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.

Nothing changes...

I was gone because I had an accident at home requiring surgery and
rehab. That does not mean I am staying to participate. I rather enjoyed
the explorations available to me while starring at a blank ceiling more
than reading the utter nonsense posted here. And I achieved some
progress in areas important to me.

Watch this space.

BTW, The "Jane" I thought I knew I do know, but matters are there
obscured by the fact I knee her under false pretenses. There's no sense
in fleshing this out because your opinions to date are quite correct.

Sorry girl,

Jane you would do well to avoid the sci newsgroups.

You even managed to embarrass yourself in your chosen field.

On 11/30/2023 3:36 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 06:19:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>
>> That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
>> Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
>
> Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies,
> stupid Mike.
>
Again, in science, evidence rules. Your opinions, such as this one, are
totally irrelevant.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2023 11:19 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 11/28/2023 2:54 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 10:35:33?PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> >>> Evidence rules. Got any that support this latest absurd claim of
> >>> yours? No, I didn't think so...
> >
> >> Paul, you fail to comprehend that many people have different opinions
> >> about science than the consensus and science isn't done by consensus
> >> or by censorious referees in dark back rooms of journals.
> >
> > That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
> > Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
>
> Nothing changes...
>
> I was gone because I had an accident at home requiring surgery and
> rehab. That does not mean I am staying to participate. I rather enjoyed
> the explorations available to me while starring at a blank ceiling more
> than reading the utter nonsense posted here. And I achieved some
> progress in areas important to me.
>
> Watch this space.
>
> BTW, The "Jane" I thought I knew I do know, but matters are there
> obscured by the fact I knee her under false pretenses. There's no sense
> in fleshing this out because your opinions to date are quite correct.

Good of you to let us know.

Jan

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:22:32 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/30/2023 3:36 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 06:19:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >
> >> That doesn't change the fact that in science, evidence rules.
> >> Experimental evidence and scientific observation matter, not opinions.
> >
> > Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies,
> > stupid Mike.
> >
> Again, in science, evidence rules. Your opinions, such as this one, are
> totally irrelevant.

"Dark matter hit six sigmas" so pretty much Hubble cosmology is
paint-canned to be round-filed.

For example these days it's "Hubble tension" or "a Big Bounce,
like Big Bang theory, but, twice", of course that the discovery that
most all the Hubble-era measurements were just LaniaKea our
local supercluster, and most all the estimates of the age of the
universe are with respect to it. Of course if you follow Big Bang theory,
you should know that over time that every few years it gets a few
hundred million or billion years older, up to the point of 2MASS and so on,
while now it's being figured out that the CMBR is pretty much uniform,
there is infrared, that Hoyle/Bondi or BigBang/SteadyState have a lot
to be revisited, it's, sort of both, or duals, the models.

MOND gets a lot of attention these days, ..., quite a lot.