Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ajQWV2E6Ns

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

This fact, that people of highest status, since they are often very ambitious for status, tend to prefer embracing ideas with status, is very pertinent to understanding how relativity achieved high status.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It had a big publicity campaign - saying had to be clever to understand it.

Thus many people want to appear to be clever and pretend they understand it.

However when study it in detail find it does not make sense - but then are dismissed as not being clever enough to understand it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/ef51701e-badf-4b87-a515-72b8ad4ba629n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I know. The contradictions are supposed to be only apparent (paradoxes) if you only had enough intelligence to see though them. So people pretend to believe and/or to understand it. If you understand it you know its not true.

Einstein himself pretended to understand it.

He said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." He couldn't explain it simply either.

I started this post on NovaBBS: https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=131011&group=sci.physics.relativity#131011

The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

The null result of MMX disproved the ether.
The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

Showing Einstein's utter lack of comprehension of the science.

[Paul Alsing]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 at 7:06:01 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

 

The null result of MMX disproved the ether.
The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

Showing Einstein's utter lack of comprehension of the science.

So now you claim that Einstein did not understand science! Perhaps you have evidence that either exists?

Holy Cow, Larry, you have earned yourself a $hitload of points on the Crackpot Index...

Crackpot index (ucr.edu)

... and I'm pretty sure that with a little more effort, you can earn a whole bunch more! You definitely scored on 8 of the first 10! Congratulations! You might just qualify for Crackpot of the Year, and it is only March!

Still clueless, Larry, and you are not likely to ever be otherwise!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Hi Laurence

Einstein said: "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." - so he was admitting that eventually he didn't understand it anymore.

The real understanding of it is - that it is nonsense so therefore must be wrong.

Unfortunately, its believers believe it despite it making no sense.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/4c416193-15d3-4957-a34b-91ed04bcb35cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Yes, and that shows a slavish acceptance of false authorities.

Actually, the mistake made by Einstein involved very little math because the Lorentz transformation is only the difference in arrival times of the two beams in the MMX. I am sure he did not understand it in the first place.

[John-Erik Persson]

Laurence

The null result of MMX disproved the ether.

No, MMX (of second order) can be compensated by length contraction.

However, Sagnac (of first order) proves an ether.

If Sagnac had been before Michelson's error we would have a very different physics today.

Regards _______________ John-Erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to relativity-skep...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/36d44eca.7b7e.18e8442a319.Webtop.88%40btinternet.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

There is no such thing as length contraction. It involves reification fallacy and it has never been proven empirically.

I think that regarding speed light behaves as a particle in a vacuum and a wave in a medium such as air.

So, in Sagnac it would behave accordingly.

PROPOSED SOLUTION:
1. WITH AIR AS A MEDIUM:
Involves compression waves:
Then the two beams move the same speed relative to the still air
Since the air is the medium.
THEREFORE: 

a. Relative to the table: they both arrive back at the same point on the table at the same time
However, one has formed compression waves, and the other has expanded waves.
b. Relative to the same spot on the disk:
The beam moving contrary to the spin will arrive first.
2. WITH VACUUM AS A MEDIUM:
Light behaves as a particle.
a. Relative to the table:
Beams share momentum of the disk:
Then the beam moving with the disk arrives back first.
b. Relative to the disk:
Both arrive at same time.

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 11:22:37 AM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

There is no such thing as length contraction. It involves reification fallacy and it has never been proven empirically.

So, how do you explain that pesky muon experiment?

Muon Experiment in Relativity (gsu.edu)

5.5: Length Contraction - Physics LibreTexts 

I think that regarding speed light behaves as a particle in a vacuum and a wave in a medium such as air.

A your expertly obtained evidence (experiments and/or observations) is what, exactly?  Your "thinking" about it is not evidence of anything!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I clearly said prediction not evidence. Misconstruing is not intelligent.

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

I clearly said prediction not evidence. Misconstruing is not intelligent.

No, you did not. You said...  "there is no such thing as length contraction".  Quite a bold statement.

Again, how do you explain the muon experiment? We all know that you do not understand it at all... and it is impossible to object to a theory you do not understand!

You also failed to address my request for evidence supporting your claim that light is a particle in a vacuum and a wave in a medium such as air. Evidence, as always, rules... got any? Maybe you think it is good science to just make it up as you go along, without even a shred of evidence. NONE. 

Do you have any idea at all about the Scientific Method? I think not...

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Scientific Method<<

is about going around in circles ->

when get to the alter theory box -> what happens is -> just change the theory and not tell anyone.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 01:48
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/e0b4e9e5-4d2f-48f6-a043-233f17a05494n%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul you never listened to anything I said. I already answered these things and you couldn't reply in any intelligent manner. You just like to Heckle and you lack comprehension. Do you think its intelligent to confuse abstractions with physical reality? That's reification fallacy and that's enough to know there is no such thing as length contraction or time dilation. And as I told you before, those concepts are thoroughly illogical. They also involve highly ad hoc reasoning making them invalid illogical nonsense. In any case it is obvious that muons travel faster than light.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Just kidding Paul. Of course nothing can go faster than light! If I walk towards your flashlight the light cannot be going relative to me c + 3mph! O.K. I have to concede that, so the muons must live longer in the atmosphere than in the laboratory.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Just kidding Paul. Of course nothing can go faster than light! If I walk towards your flashlight the light cannot be going relative to me c + 3mph! O.K. I have to concede that, so the muons must live longer in the atmosphere than in the laboratory.

 

I agree, science tells us that nothing can exceed the speed of light... but what if I told you that the closing speed between your walking and my flashlight beam *was* c + 3mph? How would you respond? Just how much do you know about the speed of light and how it is measured?

About those muons, *why* do they live longer in the atmosphere than in the lab? Hmmmm?

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 11:15:59 AM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Paul you never listened to anything I said. I already answered these things and you couldn't reply in any intelligent manner. You just like to Heckle and you lack comprehension. Do you think its intelligent to confuse abstractions with physical reality? That's reification fallacy and that's enough to know there is no such thing as length contraction or time dilation. And as I told you before, those concepts are thoroughly illogical. They also involve highly ad hoc reasoning making them invalid illogical nonsense. In any case it is obvious that muons travel faster than light.king" about it is not evidence of anything!

What a bunch of nonsense! 

From here...

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia

... it says, in part...  The degree to which a construct is useful and accepted as part of the current paradigm in a scientific community depends on empirical research that has demonstrated that a scientific construct has construct validity (especially, predictive validity).^[11] Thus, in contrast to Whitehead, many psychologists^[who?] seem to believe that, if properly understood and empirically corroborated, the "reification fallacy" applied to scientific constructs is not a fallacy at all; it is one part of theory creation and evaluation in 'Normal science'."

You are so full of crap! Again, YOU do not understand relativity and therefore claim that it is incorrect. It is not, 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I must say, Paul, you're outdoing yourself. This is the first time you've tried to defend the use of a logical fallacy! Congrats! You can rely on Wikipedia! Wikipedia is a rag. It's similar to the New York Times. If you wipe your ass with it, you'll blacken it.

Let us see what the defense of the use of this logical fallacy amounts to.
1. It's allegedly justified because it supports a paradigm. No, it doesn't support anything.

2. Justification based on predictive ability:  This begs the question of causation, which is the whole issue in physics. That is precisely what's wrong with the reification fallacy. It cannot account for causation because an abstraction doesn't cause anything. The imaginary wall did not stop the clown's nose.

For example, an exact analogy for the MMX is a boat going the same distance back and forth across a river and up down the river. The calculations show the time difference between these two trips, is the Lorentz transformation. This tells us how much time it should have been. If there was no difference in time, there must be no current. Then, the LT becomes merely a calculation of how much the current should have affected the times but did not. This does not predict that the water does not flow. In the case where the water does not flow, the prediction proved false. You can use calculations to determine the effect, but that doesn't give you the cause. The LT is not a cause. It predicted something that did not happen. It's just a measurement, and that is handy when applied to scientific constructs.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

In short, the time dilation or length contraction of muons would only be a measurement and not a causal factor.

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 12:12:02 PM UTC-7 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul provides an example of relativists defending logical fallacies.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>closing speed<<

No one has ever properly explained that to me; supposedly allowed to be greater than c. Do you have an authorative source (such as by Einstein or one of his buddies) explaining about that. Adding things so that sometimes can be greater than c and other times adding them a different way so can't be greater than c -> just seems nonsense.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 19:03
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/b80706b7-db9f-487b-a2d9-ce86eda5aa5en%40googlegroups.com.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

If light moved like sound it would be like that. The sound from an ambulance approaching you is only moving S towards you so if you move towards it it is S + 3 mph.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 1:45:59 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

In short, the time dilation or length contraction of muons would only be a measurement and not a causal factor.

Of course it is a measurement! What else did you expect? From one frame a ruler has changed its length but from another frame it has not changed at all. You will claim that this is illogical, and you would be correct, but that does not change the fact that both measurements are correct. Relativity is not easy to understand  when you have zero foundation of basic physics. How can you criticize something that you do not understand? I'm pretty sure that you do not understand nuclear physics, either, and must surely wonder how about 150 lb of nuclear material can power an aircraft carrier for several years, which is about the same weight as the one tank of gas in my van. THAT is just not logical, but the aircraft carrier is out there now, circling the globe many times using only about 150 lb of fuel the entire time. Spooky, but true.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 4:21:39 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>closing speed<<

No one has ever properly explained that to me; supposedly allowed to be greater than c. Do you have an authorative source (such as by Einstein or one of his buddies) explaining about that. Adding things so that sometimes can be greater than c and other times adding them a different way so can't be greater than c -> just seems nonsense.

 Are you incapable of looking this up for yourself?

Faster-than-light - Wikipedia

Scroll down to "Closing speeds"

"Imagine two fast-moving particles approaching each other from opposite sides of a particle accelerator of the collider type. The closing speed would be the rate at which the distance between the two particles is decreasing. From the point of view of an observer standing at rest relative to the accelerator, this rate will be slightly less than twice the speed of light."

This only works for the specific case of an observer in a different frame. Understand that NOTHING here is moving faster than light, but nevertheless the *distance* between the 2 objects is decreasing at about the sum of each velocity. The *distance* is not a Thing, it is only a measurement. From the frame of either particle, each would see the other approaching at a speed as predicted by the Lorentz transformation, something a little less than c. This is just not that hard to understand!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

You are quoting Wikipedia -> and unfortunately wiki does not say where got that information from -> so makes it look more blatant that wiki made that up.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 00:02
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/69623f7c-f80f-4520-bb61-1fdba6f3d971n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>You will claim that this is illogical, and you would be correct,..<<

So, you admit relativity is illogical?

When accept an illogical theory then anything absurd can be believed.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 Mar, 24 At 23:53
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 1:45:59 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

In short, the time dilation or length contraction of muons would only be a measurement and not a causal factor.

Of course it is a measurement! What else did you expect? From one frame a ruler has changed its length but from another frame it has not changed at all. You will claim that this is illogical, and you would be correct, but that does not change the fact that both measurements are correct. Relativity is not easy to understand when you have zero foundation of basic physics. How can you criticize something that you do not understand? I'm pretty sure that you do not understand nuclear physics, either, and must surely wonder how about 150 lb of nuclear material can power an aircraft carrier for several years, which is about the same weight as the one tank of gas in my van. THAT is just not logical, but the aircraft carrier is out there now, circling the globe many times using only about 150 lb of fuel the entire time. Spooky, but true.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/dc421da2-9cfa-4389-bba4-a357665dae7bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 5:06:27 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

You are quoting Wikipedia -> and unfortunately wiki does not say where got that information from -> so makes it look more blatant that wiki made that up.

Now you are just acting plain stupid! What do you mean when you claim "wiki does not say where got that information from"?

That article provides 94 notes in its bibliography, another 4 references, and yet another dozen external links in support of the subject matter. What do you mean, "they don't say where they got their information"?  Sheesh!

Apparently, you are clueless as to how Wiki works. Sure, there are errors, but most are quickly corrected.  Wiki articles are written by regular people like you and me but is subject to editing by anyone. Theoretically *you* could edit this very article, but without substantiating your claims you would never get by the moderators. You can't just make stuff up and put it on Wiki without ramifications. There are several people on sci.physics.relativity who have authored or co-authored an article on Wiki and there are also several people on sci.physics.relativity who have been banned because they are obvious cranks... 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Wiki gives nothing for that section on closing speed.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 00:23
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/2e06d4e3-023a-4da2-805a-8b0975703609n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 5:08:20 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

>>You will claim that this is illogical, and you would be correct,..<<

So, you admit relativity is illogical?

When accept an illogical theory then anything absurd can be believed.

Illogical does not automatically mean absurd. A lot of science is illogical to the uninformed. If you explained the concept of atoms to Galileo many centuries ago he would tell you that your story is illogical, and he would be correct... but centuries of discoveries have shown that atoms are real.  Magnetism is illogical and has been for a very long time, but you cannot argue that magnetism is false... or can you?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Illogical does not automatically mean absurd. <<

where did you get that claim from?

Much of logic based on using reductio ad absurdum.

>>explained the concept of atoms to Galileo<<

I though Galileo accepted atoms -> "Galileo believed in atoms" https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/atoms.html

you are just throwing up diversions.

relativity just gives reduction to absurdity.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 00:45
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/8ef3b75c-2359-433c-9d96-c68d60334960n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 5:42:40 PM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

Wiki gives nothing for that section on closing speed.

Now you have been downgraded to the level of a dumbfuck.

"Closing speed" is a definition and needs no supporting evidence. Just what is your CV? You sure seem uneducated to me...

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

All I would say is I'm glad your not so utterly irrational as to deny relative motion per se. Of course there are relative speeds higher than c as you just admitted.

As for muons it would be irrational to claim time dilation or length contraction so a longer life is the most likely explanation.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I didn't say that.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Sad to see that you accept that irrational nonsense. If the two particles are moving more than half c away from opposite walls they are moving toward each other at more than c.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 7:15:37 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

All I would say is I'm glad your not so utterly irrational as to deny relative motion per se. Of course there are relative speeds higher than c as you just admitted.

No, Larry, I said no such thing. There are no relative speeds higher than c. Where did you get that idea? Relative speed is *much* different than *closing speeds*. Didn't you read the reference? Is English a second language for you? Did you make it out of high school?

I've got a mud fence out back that knows more physics than you do, Larry

 

As for muons it would be irrational to claim time dilation or length contraction so a longer life is the most likely explanation.

You remain clueless, Larry, and a waste of good air. Read a dang textbook because you are just wasting time until you die. 

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Where there is censoring there is ignorance and it is an established fact that Wikipedia does propaganda. You are very ignorant about freedom of expression. Censoring is tyranny.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul is brashly lashing out at skeptics. He was always the dumbest one and least articulate bringing the least to the table in the former forum. He usually just heckled, which is all what he is saying really amounts to. I've tried to be welcoming to him but his de-platforming tactics won't work on a skeptics forum.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul, I don't think you're convincing anyone here you are intelligent or know what you are talking about.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 7:23:35 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Where there is censoring there is ignorance and it is an established fact that Wikipedia does propaganda.

That is a bold claim, Larry... what evidence do you have in support of this claim? None at all, I'll wager. Put your money where your mouth is and tell me why Wiki is unreliable. In the meantime...

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia

Wikipedia - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

How Accurate Is Wikipedia? | Live Science

You are looking more and more like a full-fledged crank, Larry, and I doubt that I can ever make you understand that you are currently the Dunning-Kruger poster boy... and that is not likely to change very soon. you simply do not know what you do not know and believe that you are the voice of truth... but I've got news for you... get help before it is too late!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul, you don't understand that some people disagree with the accepted science. In fact among the specialists the most fundamental assumptions are disagreed about. It is very ignorant to be unaware of the extreme bias and extreme faults that are well known to plague Wikipedia. It's like bulletin boards in the olden days. Better check things out before you believe them. Bye bye Paul!!!!!

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 7:32:28 PM UTC-7 l.c.c....@gmail.com wrote:

Paul, I don't think you're convincing anyone here you are intelligent or know what you are talking about.

Indeed, I am not convincing anyone here that they are wrong about their fanatical bias against mainstream science in general and mainstream physics in particular.

So, I'll be leaving this group since it is a vast waste of my time and yours.

You all can continue to give each other props about how smart you are and how stupid mainstream science is.

All I can say is that if this is what you choose to believe then I feel sorry for you. Tiy should read this...

The Universe Is Not Only Queerer Than We Suppose, But Queerer Than We Can Suppose – Quote Investigator®

... and weep.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul is civilizing the heathen! He won't allow me to disagree without berating me! Maybe I should worship Einstein too!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I'll try to keep from crying!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Au revoir!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

What it is saying about closing speed it gives no reference for where getting from

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 01:52
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/1998bc4e-1fd7-4944-b342-3f310ab4424cn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Relative speed is *much* different than *closing speeds*.<<

aren't closing speeds have to be taken relative to something as well?

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 02:22
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/43e3fb7e-c1e6-4463-bcc0-2aae8d4ef003n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

says - > >>Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results.<<

which means has been shown to be unreliable in some studies and surveys

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 02:39
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/46a560cc-94ee-49da-b7aa-6356f2ac91aan%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>queer<<

probably not allowed to say that anymore; politically incorrect

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 02:45
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/0f00f483-b3ce-4ab9-a342-0a23610d77e4n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Maybe I should worship Einstein too!<<

People have found that the easiest option- they usually start by saying how much a fan of Einstein they are and admire him etc - then start talking about physics contradicting Einstein and pretending they are not contradicting him.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Laurence Clark Crossen" <l.c.c....@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 30 Mar, 24 At 02:52
Subject: Re: Why do high status people believe ridiculous things?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/5ccc344a-648b-4169-bd6b-49b85e601f0en%40googlegroups.com.