On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>> a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a surface and its not curved.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>> a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a
surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>> a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a
surface and its not curved.
Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be
"curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:23:51 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:14, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :That is not what I said. Why is it not a reification fallacy? Because
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >>>> :What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>>>
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>>> surface and its not curved.
Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be >>>> "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
Because you say so? LOL.
you say so? It is, by definition, a reification fallacy because it
confuses the abstract with the physical. What are you saying is curved? Vacuum? A field?
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for
fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>> convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>> pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by
the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>> cabal.
weaklings who
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>> accept
curved space for a second.
understood
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that
parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation
for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized >>>>>>> him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>>> surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's >>>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you)
poor stinker
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze:
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's >>>>>>> not a
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>>> convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by
the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>>>>
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>>>>
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>>>> cabal.
weaklings who
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> accept
curved space for a second.
understood
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>>>> parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>>>>> for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and
recognized him as
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They >>>>>>>> will
never intersect.
surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. >>>>>> It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>>> turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you)
Still confused Woz?
No, Pyt.
Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
A lie. Of course.
BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic?
Still no answer, poor stinker? For sure,
spitting and slandering the enemies of your
church is much easier than answerring their
questions, isn't it?
Le 25/01/2025 � 22:05, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>
a foolish fellow.
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>> surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:39, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
How could you know? You are uneducated in math, and in physics.
Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Fields can curve while space cannot.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>>> a foolish fellow.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>>> curved space for a second.
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>> baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>> attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>> that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>> such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable.
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>> monopoly'.
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>>
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>> never intersect.
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>> surface and its not curved.
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...
"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:30, Python pisze:
BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
It is good enough, Pyt.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:14:09 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,916 |
| Posted today: | 1 |