Reply to Odd Bodkin

"While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
“straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?"

So on the basis that you assume to possess the high ground, because you have memorised a bunch of nonsense drilled into you like a Priest drills the fear of god into his choir boy, you now can only measure everyone's statements against your own cherished beliefs.

You don't KNOW "PHYSICS".. you merely know about the VERSION of Physics taught to you by people with their own agenda. And that agenda is not simply to enlighten the world.

Modern Academia doesn't OWN Science. Approved institutions don't have the rights to knowledge, and don't have the right to condemn theories of non members.

Judging my statements on the basis of my affiliations to an approved institution is not doing science.

Its not even difficult to show exactly where Einstrein's theory of SR is in error, but die-hards like you simply cant understand it, because you are mentally conditioned to reject any information not pre-approved, and you can do this without even proposing any form of logical counter argument.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reply to Odd Bodkin
>
> "While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
> “straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?"
>
> So on the basis that you assume to possess the high ground, because you
> have memorised a bunch of nonsense drilled into you like a Priest drills
> the fear of god into his choir boy, you now can only measure everyone's
> statements against your own cherished beliefs.
>
> You don't KNOW "PHYSICS".. you merely know about the VERSION of Physics
> taught to you by people with their own agenda. And that agenda is not
> simply to enlighten the world.
>
> Modern Academia doesn't OWN Science. Approved institutions don't have
> the rights to knowledge, and don't have the right to condemn theories of non members.

Well, there’s a very prevalent sentiment that there are informed opinions
and uninformed opinions, and they are not of equal value. In the case of
physics, I certainly do think that physicists are better informed than
those with casual contact with the field.

I think a couple of assumptions on your part would be worth your while.

1. That physicists have almost certainly had the same thoughts as you on
the subject, and that they have not been blinded by being too close to it.

2. They have information that leads them to conclusions different than your
own, which are based on information that you do not have, and which if you
did have, would give you pause to reconsider. In this case, your first
response upon encountering misalignment is to ask, “What am I missing”
rather than “Why are they missing this?”

I can give you some clues for things like this when I respond to some of
your other posts.

>
> Judging my statements on the basis of my affiliations to an approved
> institution is not doing science.
>
> Its not even difficult to show exactly where Einstrein's theory of SR is
> in error, but die-hards like you simply cant understand it, because you
> are mentally conditioned to reject any information not pre-approved, and
> you can do this without even proposing any form of logical counter argument.
>

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

On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 15:09:39 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, there’s a very prevalent sentiment that there are informed opinions
> and uninformed opinions, and they are not of equal value.

That's right, poor halfbrain, your opinions don't matter.