What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult members. This is eight years university math and science talking. If you can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults via email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others. https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 8:51:51 PM UTC-7, cusanus...@gmail.com wrote:
> What I asked for was rational argument,

A rational argument for a person who claims Einstein was a fake would
consist of a full-time physics course. Obviously this cannot be done a
text forum like this one.

> not personal insults from cult members.

And now you are insulting people who spent a lot of time and
effort studying this stuff. Your assumption that every physicist since
1905 to 2022 is a "cult member" is ludicrous BTW.

> This is eight years university math and science talking.

Doesn't show. Your web page looks like it was written by
a mathematics beginner. I mean less than high school.

> If you can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults via email.

I suggest you don't post arrogant idiocies on public fora while expecting no
backlash.

> The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others. https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html

Give me a break. This is total incompetence.

--
Jan

On 2022-10-02 03:51:49 +0000, Foos Research said:

> What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult members.

What is "Einstein was a fake" if not a personal insult?

> This is eight years university math and science talking.

Ah, right: "A master's in soils and chemistry at Montana State in the 70s."

If you had bothered to read earlier discussions in this news group
before posting you would know that questions similar to yours have been
asked (endlessly!) by several of the resident crackpots over the years
and thoroughly answered by physicists who know what they are talking
about.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 09:41:44 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-10-02 03:51:49 +0000, Foos Research said:
>
> > What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult members.
> What is "Einstein was a fake" if not a personal insult?
> > This is eight years university math and science talking.
> Ah, right: "A master's in soils and chemistry at Montana State in the 70s."
>
> If you had bothered to read earlier discussions in this news group
> before posting you would know that questions similar to yours have been
> asked (endlessly!) by several of the resident crackpots over the years
> and thoroughly answered by physicists who know what they are talking
> about.

And that The Shit is indeed inconsistent, as proven many times here.

Den 02.10.2022 05:51, skrev Foos Research:
> What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult members. This is eight years university math and science talking. If you can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults via email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others. https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 11:07:17 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.10.2022 05:51, skrev Foos Research:
> > What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult members. This is eight years university math and science talking. If you can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults via email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others. https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS and TAI keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult
> members. This is eight years university math and science talking. If you
> can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults
> via email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight
> deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others.
> https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html

You haven't kept up with the facts of life.
The Einsteinian light deflection of starlight
is measured on a daily basis by the GAIA astrometry satellite.
(to microarcsecond precision, and for billions of stars)
And before that by the Hipparcos sat.

Gravitational deflection is routinely applied to measured stellar
positions as a matter of course.
Or in other words, gravitational deflection of starlight
has by now become 'unproblematic background knowledge,

Jan

On 2022-10-02 09:32:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 11:07:17 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.10.2022 05:51, skrev Foos Research:> > What I asked for was
>> rational argument, not personal insults from cult members. This is
>> eight years university math and science talking. If you can't give
>> rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults via
>> email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight
>> deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others.
>> https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
> your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS and TAI keep
> measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

I don't think John Baez allowed for crackpots like you, but I'd like to
propose +1 for every repetition (after the first ten) of the same
idiocy. You must already have a score of at least 500, leaving Hachel
and Donan far behind.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Le 02/10/2022 à 13:28, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> I don't think John Baez allowed for crackpots like you, but I'd like to
> propose +1 for every repetition (after the first ten) of the same
> idiocy. You must already have a score of at least 500, leaving Hachel
> and Donan far behind.

John Baez is ridiculous.

His cracpot dialing bullshit makes people laugh.

Do you see Leibniz, Poincaré, De Gaulle, making numbers on the
"crackpots"?

But the worst, the slap, it comes after.

The devil does not give credit, and we always take a backhanded turn.

We come to bullshit like: "Doctor Hachel is a crackpot".

The devil don't give credit.

Shame on Baez who has nothing else to give a damn than to invent stupid
dinners.

I would have preferred that, like me, he reinvent SR to make it more
theoretically more just and without paradox, more educational, more
beautiful and experimentally more true.

This hatred of the other has always annoyed me, especially since it is
scientifically unfair and counterproductive.

R.H.

Paul B. Andersen <pba@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 02.10.2022 05:51, skrev Foos Research:
> > What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult
> > members. This is eight years university math and science talking. If you
> > can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send
> > insults via email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the
> > starlight deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others.
> > https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

Yes, it is like Flat Earth nutters still arguing about ship's masts
gradually disappearing from sight over the horizon,
as if that still was still something to argue about.

It is a sorry sight,

Jan

On 10/1/2022 11:51 PM, Foos Research wrote:
> What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult members.

FAIL. You start off by asking people not to label you as a crackpot, but
here you call scientists and others who believe in relativity to be
"cult members" and in your other post they are "brainwashed". I'll place
the odds of your being a crackpot at 99.9%. And welcome, nice to see
some "fresh meat" here! I follow this group because I am entertained by
cranks being cranks. I occasionally poke cranks with the sharp pointy
stick of science to get better reactions from them.

BTW why did you start three topics on this?

On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 13:14:45 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Foos Research <cusanus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What I asked for was rational argument, not personal insults from cult
> > members. This is eight years university math and science talking. If you
> > can't give rational argument about the facts at issue, don't send insults
> > via email. The most obvious issue at hand among others is the starlight
> > deflection issue, but you're welcome to browse others.
> > https://foosresearch.com/starlight.html
> You haven't kept up with the facts of life.
> The Einsteinian light deflection of starlight

is against his ingenious GR, assuming light
[in vacuum] to be always travelling straight/geodesic
paths.

On 10/2/2022 7:44 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/10/2022 à 13:28, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> I don't think John Baez allowed for crackpots like you, but I'd like
>> to propose +1 for every repetition (after the first ten) of the same
>> idiocy.  You must already have a score of at least 500, leaving Hachel
>> and Donan far behind.
>
> John Baez is ridiculous.
>
> His cracpot dialing bullshit makes people laugh.

It sure does! It's amazing how well crackpots match patterns!
>
> Do you see Leibniz, Poincaré, De Gaulle, making numbers on the "crackpots"?

Well, they don't post to newsgroups or forums, as they are long dead,
but from the poor comparisons which can be made to their writings, they
would score very low.
>
> But the worst, the slap, it comes after.
>
> The devil does not give credit, and we always take a backhanded turn.
>
> We come to bullshit like: "Doctor Hachel is a crackpot".

"Crackpot" is a title which is earned. You have earned it. Congratulations.
>
> The devil don't give credit.

But people here credit your crackpottery, even with a score.
>
> Shame on Baez who has nothing else to give a damn than to invent stupid
> dinners.

Dinners????

Baez's rating system is an excellent resource to use.

BTW I am thinking of updating the Baez crackpot index, as I see patterns
not covered in Baez's original. It is also rather old. Any interest? I'm
open to additions and improvement suggestions.
>
> I would have preferred that, like me, he reinvent SR to make it more
> theoretically more just and without paradox, more educational, more
> beautiful and experimentally more true.
>
> This hatred of the other has always annoyed me, especially since it is
> scientifically unfair and counterproductive.

What is counterproductive is when you ignore corrections to your claims
and just start new topics repeating the same claims as if nothing happened.

Le 02/10/2022 à 18:26, Volney a écrit :
> On 10/2/2022 7:44 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> What is counterproductive is when you ignore corrections to your claims
> and just start new topics repeating the same claims as if nothing happened.

But nothing was hapenned !!!

R.H.

On 10/2/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/10/2022 à 18:26, Volney a écrit :
>> On 10/2/2022 7:44 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> What is counterproductive is when you ignore corrections to your
>> claims and just start new topics repeating the same claims as if
>> nothing happened.
>
> But nothing was hapenned !!!

Plenty happened. You were shown to be wrong. Repeatedly.

As I said, you ignored the corrections to your claims and just started a
new topic on the same topic, with the same, already refuted claims, as
if nothing happened.