On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 17:32:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!” Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >>>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> >>>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
> >>>>>> Like what, for example?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
> >>>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
> >>>
> >>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> >>> with all SR gedankens.
> >> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
> >> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
> >> real experiments done in the lab.
>
> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
>
> >>>
> >>>> MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
> >>>> gravity to match data.
> >>>
> >>> How about Newton's dynamics?
> >> Newton’s dynamics were also heavily modified. Newton’s force/momentum view
> >> did not do fluids very well, and so two significant outgrowths were needed:
> >> 1) reformulations by D’Alembert, Lagrange, and Hamilton around stationary
> >> principles, and 2) the deeper fundamentality of conservation of momentum
> >> and conservation of energy. Both of these led the way to statistical
> >> mechanics and the huge blossoming of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I don't.
> >>>> Why not?
> >>>
> >>> Because so.
> >>>
> >>>> You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
> >>>> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?
> >>>
> >>> See, poor idiot - a modification of [anything] can be a good
> >>> idea and can be a bad one. But good, bad - aren't exact terms.
> >>> It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad.
> >> Since WHEN?
> >
> > Odd, poor idiot, do you have a mathematical formula
> > for calculating what is good and what is bad?
>
> No, and that’s not the alternative.
>
> > Do you have a measuring procedure for measuring
> > what is good and what is bad?
>
> No, and that’s not the alternative either.
>
> > And what do you have for that? How do you determine
> > it?
>
>
> Ah yes. It’s called the scientific method.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 17:32:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
>>>>>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
>>>>>>>> Like what, for example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
>>>>>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
>>
>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?

Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.

Do you bullshit?

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
>>>>>> gravity to match data.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about Newton's dynamics?
>>>> Newton’s dynamics were also heavily modified. Newton’s force/momentum view
>>>> did not do fluids very well, and so two significant outgrowths were needed:
>>>> 1) reformulations by D’Alembert, Lagrange, and Hamilton around stationary
>>>> principles, and 2) the deeper fundamentality of conservation of momentum
>>>> and conservation of energy. Both of these led the way to statistical
>>>> mechanics and the huge blossoming of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
>>>>>> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?
>>>>>
>>>>> See, poor idiot - a modification of [anything] can be a good
>>>>> idea and can be a bad one. But good, bad - aren't exact terms.
>>>>> It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad.
>>>> Since WHEN?
>>>
>>> Odd, poor idiot, do you have a mathematical formula
>>> for calculating what is good and what is bad?
>>
>> No, and that’s not the alternative.
>>
>>> Do you have a measuring procedure for measuring
>>> what is good and what is bad?
>>
>> No, and that’s not the alternative either.
>>
>>> And what do you have for that? How do you determine
>>> it?
>>
>>
>> Ah yes. It’s called the scientific method.
>
> Do you really have it? Are you really able to
> determine good and bad with your "scientific
> method" idiocy?

On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 17:32:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say “Pbflppflpt!”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >>>>>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> >>>>>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
> >>>>>>>> Like what, for example?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
> >>>>>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> >>>>> with all SR gedankens.
> >>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
> >>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
> >>>> real experiments done in the lab.
> >>
> >> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
>
> Do you bullshit?
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> MOND was an example of a seriously treated attempt to modify Newtonian
> >>>>>> gravity to match data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How about Newton's dynamics?
> >>>> Newton’s dynamics were also heavily modified. Newton’s force/momentum view
> >>>> did not do fluids very well, and so two significant outgrowths were needed:
> >>>> 1) reformulations by D’Alembert, Lagrange, and Hamilton around stationary
> >>>> principles, and 2) the deeper fundamentality of conservation of momentum
> >>>> and conservation of energy. Both of these led the way to statistical
> >>>> mechanics and the huge blossoming of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't.
> >>>>>> Why not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You think forward progress on scientific ideas, including
> >>>>>> modifications of previous ideas, is a bad idea for humans?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See, poor idiot - a modification of [anything] can be a good
> >>>>> idea and can be a bad one. But good, bad - aren't exact terms.
> >>>>> It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad.
> >>>> Since WHEN?
> >>>
> >>> Odd, poor idiot, do you have a mathematical formula
> >>> for calculating what is good and what is bad?
> >>
> >> No, and that’s not the alternative.
> >>
> >>> Do you have a measuring procedure for measuring
> >>> what is good and what is bad?
> >>
> >> No, and that’s not the alternative either.
> >>
> >>> And what do you have for that? How do you determine
> >>> it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah yes. It’s called the scientific method.
> >
> > Do you really have it? Are you really able to
> > determine good and bad with your "scientific
> > method" idiocy?
> Good and bad modifications of scientific ideas, yes
> That’s what we were
> talking about.

On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."

WHOSE common sense? You never answered that. There is no unique common
sense which everyone has.

Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
you have so many issues with just about everything.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 17:32:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Pbflppflpt!”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
>>>>>>>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
>>>>>>>>>> Like what, for example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
>>>>>>>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
>>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
>>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
>>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
>>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>
>>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
>> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
>> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
>> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
>>
>> Do you bullshit?

On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
> > "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.

COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
you're just too dumb to comprehend.

> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
> you have so many issues with just about everything.

Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
Under common sense it's not important what a single
person think and say, it's important how many others think
and say the same. It's probably nothing you could
comprehend, but maybe someone else will.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>
> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
>
>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
>
> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.

Well not quite. Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
is not considered useful.

> Under common sense it's not important what a single
> person think and say, it's important how many others think
> and say the same. It's probably nothing you could
> comprehend, but maybe someone else will.

According your own criterium, you're 100% out of common sense
then, Maciej.

On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:42:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 17:32:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like people going to an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Pbflppflpt!”
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math group. Why they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that? What’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang of the twin human drives
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or mathematical vulnerability. Who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the symphonic music playing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pie and have a go at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
> >>>>>>>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
> >>>>>>>>>> Like what, for example?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
> >>>>>>>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> >>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
> >>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
> >>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
> >>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
> >> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
> >> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
> >> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
> >>
> >> Do you bullshit?
> Well, do you?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:42:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>>>>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
>>>>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
>>>>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
>>>>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
>>>>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
>>>> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
>>>> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
>>>> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>
>>>> Do you bullshit?
>> Well, do you?
>
> If you ever learn to listen to wiser ones (what is VERY
> unlikely) maybe I'll tell you about it. Until then, it would
> be a hopeless waste of my time. It exists (alef0 of
> them actually exist) and it's (the mine) rather trivial.

Oh please, please Maciej, publish details about these Aleph0 versions
of Classical Mechanics compatible with SR!

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
> >>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> >> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
> >
> > COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
> > you're just too dumb to comprehend.
> >
> >> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
> >> you have so many issues with just about everything.
> >
> > Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
> > was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
> Well not quite.

Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
A plane is also different than a bird.

> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
> is not considered useful.

Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
president - what do you think it is?

> > Under common sense it's not important what a single
> > person think and say, it's important how many others think
> > and say the same. It's probably nothing you could
> > comprehend, but maybe someone else will.
> According your own criterium, you're 100% out of common sense
> then, Maciej.

Not as much, poor idiot, and less than you.

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:21:37 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:42:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >>>>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> >>>>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
> >>>>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
> >>>>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
> >>>>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
> >>>> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
> >>>> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
> >>>> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you bullshit?
> >> Well, do you?
> >
> > If you ever learn to listen to wiser ones (what is VERY
> > unlikely) maybe I'll tell you about it. Until then, it would
> > be a hopeless waste of my time. It exists (alef0 of
> > them actually exist) and it's (the mine) rather trivial.
> Oh please, please Maciej, publish details about these Aleph0 versions

I don't know all of them:( sorry. Try to understand, do
you know all alef0 of prime numbers?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:21:37 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:42:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
>>>>>>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
>>>>>>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
>>>>>>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
>>>>>> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
>>>>>> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
>>>>>> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you bullshit?
>>>> Well, do you?
>>>
>>> If you ever learn to listen to wiser ones (what is VERY
>>> unlikely) maybe I'll tell you about it. Until then, it would
>>> be a hopeless waste of my time. It exists (alef0 of
>>> them actually exist) and it's (the mine) rather trivial.
>> Oh please, please Maciej, publish details about these Aleph0 versions
>
> I don't know all of them:( sorry. Try to understand, do
> you know all alef0 of prime numbers?

Just pick a dozen of them. Of course as they don't exist you will
evade again, right Maciej?

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:37:15 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:21:37 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:42:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
> >>>>>>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
> >>>>>>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
> >>>>>>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
> >>>>>> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
> >>>>>> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
> >>>>>> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you bullshit?
> >>>> Well, do you?
> >>>
> >>> If you ever learn to listen to wiser ones (what is VERY
> >>> unlikely) maybe I'll tell you about it. Until then, it would
> >>> be a hopeless waste of my time. It exists (alef0 of
> >>> them actually exist) and it's (the mine) rather trivial.
> >> Oh please, please Maciej, publish details about these Aleph0 versions
> >
> > I don't know all of them:( sorry. Try to understand, do
> > you know all alef0 of prime numbers?
> Just pick a dozen of them.

What do you think, how much time it took for your
idiot guru to create his Shit? Of course, I'm a professional,
but that also mean I can't afford such a primitive mess
as he did. What you want is a job for years, and - be
honest at least once, stinker; you're not really going
to read it, are you?

> Of course as they don't exist

What makes you so sure? What do you think, is
SR shit one and only? No, there is LET too. So, there
are two and not any more? And that's because...?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:42:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 20:16:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 17:32:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 15:59:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 20:19:51 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:59:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:48:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 19:32:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:52:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 18:27:09 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 5:42:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve noticed that there are some people here on a science newsgroup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have little regard for science. It’s a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like people going to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acupuncture newsgroup to spend a lot of time just to say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Pbflppflpt!”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an economics group to say the same thing. Or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math group. Why they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would waste their time doing that is frankly beyond me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't waste their time. Their goal is to make you waste yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are extremely successful at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if they are bored and are trying to waste some time, why do they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the need to waste others’ time as well? I mean, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does that? What’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motive? What’s the desired outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's one of those "speaking truth to power" things in my case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin. Or it could be just the ying and yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the twin human drives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for creation and destruction. Look, Einstein is arguably the biggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cock on the block. So with what joy does a close reader of him explode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with joy when he finds a logical or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical vulnerability. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could resist the temptation to throw a pie in the face of the guy they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always superimpose on the star field with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symphonic music playing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the background. Lighten up Bodkin. Here, take this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pie and have a go at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. You might like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting forensic question is how did Einstein manage to survive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsification by gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this statement. SR is not invalidated by gravity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because SR stands for Special relativity, namely those cases where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision needed gravity can be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting your idiot guru:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, you will probably try to persuade that Newtonian equations don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold under gravity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein realized shortly AFTER publishing the paper in 1905 that in fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. So he shouted "I meant no gravity!!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, he didn’t shout. And he did modify the statements of special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity to apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, poor halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and you think that this kind of realization should not be allowed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think and I know that theories your idiot gurus dislike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not getting such a chance.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like what, for example?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Like Newton's dynamics, for example.
>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think it wasn’t given a chance?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because it's VERY easy to make a version compatibile
>>>>>>>>> with all SR gedankens.
>>>>>>>> Ah, wonderful! So you have produced this version! Where is it?
>>>>>>>> And, by the way, not just matching gedankens but matching the results of
>>>>>>>> real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh no! Such a strong promise, but delivery is delayed. Where is it?
>>>> Where is it? You said it is VERY easy to make a version of Newton’s
>>>> dynamics that is compatible with all SR gedankens, and I would expect it to
>>>> be compatible with the results of real experiments done in the lab.
>>>>
>>>> Do you bullshit?
>> Well, do you?
>
> If you ever learn to listen to wiser ones (what is VERY
> unlikely) maybe I'll tell you about it. Until then, it would
> be a hopeless waste of my time. It exists (alef0 of
> them actually exist) and it's (the mine) rather trivial.
>

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
>>>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>>>
>>> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
>>> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
>>>
>>>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
>>>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
>>> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
>> Well not quite.
>
> Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
> A plane is also different than a bird.
>
>> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
>> is not considered useful.
>
> Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
> president - what do you think it is?

Fuzzy logic does not mean majority rule. Good grief.
Slinging jargon around and you don’t even know what it means. No surprise
there.

By the way, the majority of humans believe in the existence of a conscious
deity. This in your mind tells you this is common sense, sane, intelligent?

>
>>> Under common sense it's not important what a single
>>> person think and say, it's important how many others think
>>> and say the same. It's probably nothing you could
>>> comprehend, but maybe someone else will.
>> According your own criterium, you're 100% out of common sense
>> then, Maciej.
>
> Not as much, poor idiot, and less than you.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 13:45:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
> >>>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> >>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
> >>>
> >>> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
> >>> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
> >>>
> >>>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
> >>>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
> >>>
> >>> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
> >>> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
> >> Well not quite.
> >
> > Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
> > A plane is also different than a bird.
> >
> >> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
> >> is not considered useful.
> >
> > Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
> > president - what do you think it is?
> Fuzzy logic does not mean majority rule. Good grief.

It doesn't, indeed. But majority rule means fuzzy logic.
The society has a problem - who is a better candidate,
A or B? It's solving the problem with FL; the answer
is - 52% A, 45%B, A becomes the president. Sorry, stinker.

How is your distinguishing good and bad with scientific
method, BTW?

> By the way, the majority of humans believe in the existence of a conscious
> deity.

As usual, poor idiot woodworker simply knows.

> This in your mind tells you this is common sense, sane, intelligent?

For sure, what Copernicus said was completely against
common sense, but as he was able to convince others to
repeat it - it's not anymore. So it was with Darwin. Things are
completely different with your Shit, of course; no matter how
loudly poor idiot Tom will scream that Cs clocks must have
9,192,631,770 rate - the ones in GPS will stay with 9,192,631,774.
more than 100 years of moronic screams of your idiot gurus
has convinced NOBODY.

And as for religion, it's similiar to CS in some ways and different in
some other ways. Does my answer satisfy you?
..

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 13:45:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
>>>>>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>>>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>>>>>
>>>>> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
>>>>> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
>>>>>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
>>>>> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
>>>> Well not quite.
>>>
>>> Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
>>> A plane is also different than a bird.
>>>
>>>> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
>>>> is not considered useful.
>>>
>>> Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
>>> president - what do you think it is?
>> Fuzzy logic does not mean majority rule. Good grief.
>
> It doesn't, indeed. But majority rule means fuzzy logic.
> The society has a problem - who is a better candidate,
> A or B? It's solving the problem with FL; the answer
> is - 52% A, 45%B, A becomes the president. Sorry, stinker.

That is not fuzzy logic. Lol.

>
> How is your distinguishing good and bad with scientific
> method, BTW?
>
>
>
>> By the way, the majority of humans believe in the existence of a conscious
>> deity.
>
> As usual, poor idiot woodworker simply knows.

You didn’t know this? Data.

>
>> This in your mind tells you this is common sense, sane, intelligent?
>
> For sure, what Copernicus said was completely against
> common sense, but as he was able to convince others to
> repeat it - it's not anymore. So it was with Darwin. Things are
> completely different with your Shit, of course; no matter how
> loudly poor idiot Tom will scream that Cs clocks must have
> 9,192,631,770 rate - the ones in GPS will stay with 9,192,631,774.
> more than 100 years of moronic screams of your idiot gurus
> has convinced NOBODY.

Well, actually that’s not true. It’s convinced a lot of people. Not
everybody. But then again, there are quite a lot of people that don’t
believe in evolution either. Congratulations, you’ve just put yourself in a
camp analogous to creationists. And just like some creationists say,
“Evolution has convinced NOBODY,” you say relativity has convinced NOBODY.

>
> And as for religion, it's similiar to CS in some ways and different in
> some other ways. Does my answer satisfy you?
> .
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 15:09:08 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 13:45:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
> >>>>>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> >>>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
> >>>>> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
> >>>>>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
> >>>>> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
> >>>> Well not quite.
> >>>
> >>> Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
> >>> A plane is also different than a bird.
> >>>
> >>>> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
> >>>> is not considered useful.
> >>>
> >>> Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
> >>> president - what do you think it is?
> >> Fuzzy logic does not mean majority rule. Good grief.
> >
> > It doesn't, indeed. But majority rule means fuzzy logic.
> > The society has a problem - who is a better candidate,
> > A or B? It's solving the problem with FL; the answer
> > is - 52% A, 45%B, A becomes the president. Sorry, stinker.
> That is not fuzzy logic. Lol.
> >
> > How is your distinguishing good and bad with scientific
> > method, BTW?
> >
> >
> >
> >> By the way, the majority of humans believe in the existence of a conscious
> >> deity.
> >
> > As usual, poor idiot woodworker simply knows.
> You didn’t know this? Data.

Well, I knew that there is data. There is a lot of data in the world
we inhabit. But I also know some people declared as christians.

> >
> >> This in your mind tells you this is common sense, sane, intelligent?
> >
> > For sure, what Copernicus said was completely against
> > common sense, but as he was able to convince others to
> > repeat it - it's not anymore. So it was with Darwin. Things are
> > completely different with your Shit, of course; no matter how
> > loudly poor idiot Tom will scream that Cs clocks must have
> > 9,192,631,770 rate - the ones in GPS will stay with 9,192,631,774.
> > more than 100 years of moronic screams of your idiot gurus
> > has convinced NOBODY.
> Well, actually that’s not true.

Well, yes, that is.

> It’s convinced a lot of people.

The real content of The Shit, hidden deeply behind your
mystical bullshit of the Laws of Nature and experiments
confirming, is a simple one: the clocks of Giant Guru are
the best and the only. No, nobody is convinced. Not even you.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 15:09:08 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 13:45:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
>>>>>>>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>>>>>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
>>>>>>> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
>>>>>>>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
>>>>>>> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
>>>>>> Well not quite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
>>>>> A plane is also different than a bird.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
>>>>>> is not considered useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
>>>>> president - what do you think it is?
>>>> Fuzzy logic does not mean majority rule. Good grief.
>>>
>>> It doesn't, indeed. But majority rule means fuzzy logic.
>>> The society has a problem - who is a better candidate,
>>> A or B? It's solving the problem with FL; the answer
>>> is - 52% A, 45%B, A becomes the president. Sorry, stinker.
>> That is not fuzzy logic. Lol.
>>>
>>> How is your distinguishing good and bad with scientific
>>> method, BTW?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> By the way, the majority of humans believe in the existence of a conscious
>>>> deity.
>>>
>>> As usual, poor idiot woodworker simply knows.
>> You didn’t know this? Data.
>
> Well, I knew that there is data. There is a lot of data in the world
> we inhabit. But I also know some people declared as christians.

Read what I actually wrote.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>> This in your mind tells you this is common sense, sane, intelligent?
>>>
>>> For sure, what Copernicus said was completely against
>>> common sense, but as he was able to convince others to
>>> repeat it - it's not anymore. So it was with Darwin. Things are
>>> completely different with your Shit, of course; no matter how
>>> loudly poor idiot Tom will scream that Cs clocks must have
>>> 9,192,631,770 rate - the ones in GPS will stay with 9,192,631,774.
>>> more than 100 years of moronic screams of your idiot gurus
>>> has convinced NOBODY.
>> Well, actually that’s not true.
>
> Well, yes, that is.
>
>> It’s convinced a lot of people.
>
> The real content of The Shit, hidden deeply behind your
> mystical bullshit of the Laws of Nature and experiments
> confirming, is a simple one: the clocks of Giant Guru are
> the best and the only. No, nobody is convinced. Not even you.
>
>

Lol. No, that’s not the real content of relativity. Not even remotely
close.
If you thought it was, then you are bone-deep, irreversibly stupid.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 12/31/2021 2:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>
> COMMON sense.

WHOSE common sense? My common sense? Odd's? Einstein's? That of an
inmate of the nearest asylum?

My common sense has no problems with Galilean relativity for day-to-day
experiences. On the other hand, you were always complaining about
physicists stating "trees and lampposts running around", so apparently
Galilean relativity is NOT part of YOUR 'common sense'. Not part of the
'common sense' of the guy talking about the radar gun in the truck, either.

> I always answerred that, stupid Mike,

No, you did not.

>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
>> you have so many issues with just about everything.

As I said, "lampposts running around"...
>
> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.

Whose? No, it is used to describe things not strictly binary, such as
"rich" vs. "poor".

> Under common sense it's not important what a single
> person think and say, it's important how many others think
> and say the same. It's probably nothing you could
> comprehend, but maybe someone else will.

That sounds more like majority rule than fuzzy logic.
>

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 12/31/2021 2:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim "It's
>>>> common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>>
>> COMMON sense.
>
> WHOSE common sense? My common sense? Odd's? Einstein's? That of an
> inmate of the nearest asylum?

this usenet user don't even know what *common_sense* stands for. The
reasoning the most agree, without which you wouldn't pass an exam,
perform a task in a high tech equipped laboratory, land on moon, etc, etc
and etc. Go back to Russia, troll.

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 16:17:33 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 15:09:08 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 13:45:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 08:18:47 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/30/2021 3:22 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim
> >>>>>>>>> "It's common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> >>>>>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> COMMON sense. I always answerred that, stupid Mike,
> >>>>>>> you're just too dumb to comprehend.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Specifically, I would not trust your "common sense" that much seeing as
> >>>>>>>> you have so many issues with just about everything.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Have you ever heard of fuzzy logic, stupid Mike? It
> >>>>>>> was copied/adapted from common sense mechanisms.
> >>>>>> Well not quite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, quite. There are differences, not especially big.
> >>>>> A plane is also different than a bird.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Moreover fuzzy logic wasn't really successful and
> >>>>>> is not considered useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not useful, you say... and when you're electing your
> >>>>> president - what do you think it is?
> >>>> Fuzzy logic does not mean majority rule. Good grief.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't, indeed. But majority rule means fuzzy logic.
> >>> The society has a problem - who is a better candidate,
> >>> A or B? It's solving the problem with FL; the answer
> >>> is - 52% A, 45%B, A becomes the president. Sorry, stinker.
> >> That is not fuzzy logic. Lol.
> >>>
> >>> How is your distinguishing good and bad with scientific
> >>> method, BTW?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> By the way, the majority of humans believe in the existence of a conscious
> >>>> deity.
> >>>
> >>> As usual, poor idiot woodworker simply knows.
> >> You didn’t know this? Data.
> >
> > Well, I knew that there is data. There is a lot of data in the world
> > we inhabit. But I also know some people declared as christians.
> Read what I actually wrote.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> This in your mind tells you this is common sense, sane, intelligent?
> >>>
> >>> For sure, what Copernicus said was completely against
> >>> common sense, but as he was able to convince others to
> >>> repeat it - it's not anymore. So it was with Darwin. Things are
> >>> completely different with your Shit, of course; no matter how
> >>> loudly poor idiot Tom will scream that Cs clocks must have
> >>> 9,192,631,770 rate - the ones in GPS will stay with 9,192,631,774.
> >>> more than 100 years of moronic screams of your idiot gurus
> >>> has convinced NOBODY.
> >> Well, actually that’s not true.
> >
> > Well, yes, that is.
> >
> >> It’s convinced a lot of people.
> >
> > The real content of The Shit, hidden deeply behind your
> > mystical bullshit of the Laws of Nature and experiments
> > confirming, is a simple one: the clocks of Giant Guru are
> > the best and the only. No, nobody is convinced. Not even you.
> >
> >
> Lol. No, that’s not the real content of relativity. Not even remotely
> close.

Yes, it is.
If you thought it was not, then you are bone-deep, irreversibly stupid.
And you are.

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 16:52:36 UTC+1, Electo Banno wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > On 12/31/2021 2:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim "It's
> >>>> common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> >>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
> >>
> >> COMMON sense.
> >
> > WHOSE common sense? My common sense? Odd's? Einstein's? That of an
> > inmate of the nearest asylum?

COMMON sense, stupid Mike. As expected,
trying to explain you something was a waste of
time.

On 12/31/2021 12:46 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 16:52:36 UTC+1, Electo Banno wrote:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/31/2021 2:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim "It's
>>>>>> common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
>>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
>>>>
>>>> COMMON sense.
>>>
>>> WHOSE common sense? My common sense? Odd's? Einstein's? That of an
>>> inmate of the nearest asylum?
>
> COMMON sense, stupid Mike. As expected,
> trying to explain you something was a waste of
> time.
>
Why won't you answer "Whose?" The common sense of different people will
be similar but not identical. You, for example, have an issue with
Galileo hundreds of years ago.

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 20:22:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/31/2021 12:46 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 16:52:36 UTC+1, Electo Banno wrote:
> >> Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/31/2021 2:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 22:34:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> No, poor stinker, What we were talking about was my claim "It's
> >>>>>> common sense deciding what is good and what is bad."
> >>>>> WHOSE common sense? You never answered that.
> >>>>
> >>>> COMMON sense.
> >>>
> >>> WHOSE common sense? My common sense? Odd's? Einstein's? That of an
> >>> inmate of the nearest asylum?
> >
> > COMMON sense, stupid Mike. As expected,
> > trying to explain you something was a waste of
> > time.
> >
> Why won't you answer "Whose?"

Common. COMMON. C-O-M-M-O-N.

> The common sense of different people will
> be similar but not identical.

If something is different between you and me
it is not common between you and me. Are you
really too dumb to get even that?