1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS

  • Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.

    From whodat@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Apr 28 19:04:07 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Sylvia Else wrote:

    On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

    On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>>>>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will >>>>>> explain why when people here have studied it.


    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
    publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
    rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
    Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Apr 29 09:46:39 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Sylvia Else wrote:

    On 20-Apr-23 2:08 am, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

    On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >>>>> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.


    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. >>> I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble. >>> The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
    Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arindam Banerjee@21:1/5 to whodat on Fri Apr 28 17:04:56 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:26:29 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 4:18 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
    whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 2:28 AM, Jane wrote:
    Where is YOUR maths that give you the right and reason to be sceptical >>> about my important observation?
    The abuse of maths is the key instrument of the pseudoscientists who now infest all the top paying positions.

    Skepticism is the backbone of all science.
    The pseudoscientist - that is to say, all modern physicists - is not sceptical about the nonsenses (entropy, relativity, quantum) he preaches. He has converted physics to a religion.

    not in mathematics, logic and so on. You can't have skepticism, idiot. I have to leak a wind. Another one. Good morning to you too.
    Right. Mathematics and logic are incontrovertible, and so are the key basis for judging what is nonsense and what is not.

    Clearly you do not know the definition of "science" that is the
    systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
    natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
    Before that, science is the opinion of a collective of HONEST and knowledgeable people, not frauds with scientific degrees spouting endless nonsenses for career and political-theological reasons.
    Unfortunately there is no place for honest people in the world of physics. One has to be a dogmatic fraud, a e=mcc chanting theologian.
    But like all evils, this too shall pass, when my internal force engine finally gets developed to travel beyond light speeds, following e=0.5mVVN(N-k), v(final) =NV, c(v)=c+v as fundamental formulas with internal force.

    Of course there are more modern definitions that incorporate "social
    science" and things like mathematics to the detriment of society not
    unlike calling a building janitor or garbage collector an "engineer."
    No greater garbage than e=mcc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Mon May 1 00:04:43 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
    publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
    rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
    Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
    and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 23:15:43 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 4/30/2023 7:04 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
    publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
    rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
    and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.

    Is that your claim as to how science works? Stupid me, I was led to
    believe that a person who found fault with an article that was
    published in a peer reviewed journal was supposed to submit and
    publish a dissenting article showing the error(s) missed by the
    referee(s) in the first instance. The problem with the approach
    you're taking is that Usenet, in recent times, has not had
    individuals with the technical proficiency to undertake such
    reviews and at the same time you've not demonstrated that caliber
    of proficiency. If I am mistaken in my assessment then by all
    means please show me. BTW, unsubstantiated claims never do the trick.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to whodat on Mon May 1 14:44:05 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 01-May-23 2:40 pm, whodat wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>>>> publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>>> rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper >>> and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.



    The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they
    suspect, there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find
    it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error,
    you'll just disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really
    read it, or that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error,
    and are therefore not worth bothering with.

    They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is
    the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

    As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

    As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be
    misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic
    in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a
    criticism of your attempt(s).


    You're right - it's a triumph of hope over experience. Still, it might
    work, one day. Perhaps.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon May 1 14:29:46 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
    publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist
    rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
    and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.



    The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they suspect,
    there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find it. If they
    claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, you'll just
    disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really read it, or
    that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, and are
    therefore not worth bothering with.

    They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is the
    error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

    As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sun Apr 30 23:40:25 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the
    publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>> rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913 paper
    and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.



    The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they suspect,
    there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error, you'll just
    disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really read it, or
    that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error, and are
    therefore not worth bothering with.

    They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

    As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

    As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be
    misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic
    in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a
    criticism of your attempt(s).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Mon May 1 00:30:49 2023
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity

    On 4/30/2023 11:44 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-May-23 2:40 pm, whodat wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 11:29 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 01-May-23 10:04 am, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:04:07 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 6:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 20-Apr-23 10:25 am, The Starmaker wrote:
    Why not just explain it anyway?

    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the >>>>>>>>> publication.
    I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist >>>>>>>>> rabble.
    The  paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you. >>>>>>>>> Can you spot the blatant error?

    No. I don't believe there is a blatant error.

    Sylvia.

    Cat fight!

    Seemingly not. Jane chose to shut up rather than put up.

    Has anyone else noticed that she does that a lot?

    I am waiting for others to tell me they have read Michelson's 1913
    paper
    and have raked up enough intelligence to recognize the blatant error.



    The problem from the perspective of others is that if, as they
    suspect, there is no blatant error, then of course they'll never find
    it. If they claim to have read the paper, but not found the error,
    you'll just disbelieve them, and either claim that they didn't really
    read it, or that they are just incapable of spotting a blatant error,
    and are therefore not worth bothering with.

    They only way to resolve this is for you to state what you claim is
    the error. Then others can assess your claim on its merits.

    As things stand, your refusal to support your claim looks very odd.

    As enticing as your logic is to any rational mind it seems to be
    misplaced here. Have you ever had a positive result to your logic
    in these Usenet newsgroups? Please bear in mind this is not a
    criticism of your attempt(s).


    You're right - it's a triumph of hope over experience. Still, it might
    work, one day. Perhaps.

    I wish you well.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)