Re: The Apollo moon landings

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
 

<snip old crap>

AI was asked to evaluate person b's response to person a:

Person A:

Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?  Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed.  There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous.  Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it.  They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.

Person B:

 
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the
aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western
mindset.
 
Tesla bitterly opposed the whole relativity nonsense so he was
comprehensively persecuted by the bigoted pseudoscientific elites.
 
 
WOOF woof woof-woof woof
 
Bertietaylor

Person B's response is problematic on multiple levels—intellectually,
logically, and ethically. Here's an evaluation based on content,
reasoning, and tone:
1. Intellectual and Factual Integrity

    Lack of Evidence: Person B makes bold assertions—such as relativity
    being motivated by a rejection of "aether" for metaphysical/religious
    reasons—without any scientific or historical evidence.

    Historical Inaccuracy: The claim that relativity was created to deny
    Hindu metaphysics (e.g., equating aether with "AUM") is not grounded
    in any legitimate scientific or historical discourse. The shift away
    from the aether concept arose from experimental evidence (e.g.,
    Michelson-Morley experiment) and the development of Maxwell’s
    equations, not religious motivation.

    Misrepresentation of Tesla: While Tesla did criticize aspects of
    modern physics, especially quantum theory and aspects of relativity,
    there is no strong evidence that he was “comprehensively persecuted”
    for this. Tesla’s later marginalization had more to do with his
    personal decisions and the scientific mainstream moving beyond his
    particular ideas, not some coordinated persecution by “pseudoscientific
    elites.”

2. Logical and Argumentative Quality

    Fallacies:

        Ad hominem: The response attacks "Jew metaphysics" and "racist
and bigoted western mindset," which are sweeping generalizations
and bigoted themselves.

        Appeal to Authority (Tesla): Tesla is invoked not for evidence,
but as a rhetorical weapon—“Tesla hated it, therefore it must
be wrong.”

        Non sequitur: There’s no logical connection between Einstein’s
scientific contributions and the religious or ethnic insinuations
Person B makes.

    Lack of Coherent Argumentation: No attempt is made to engage with
    Person A’s point about how Einstein’s work gained credibility
    through its content rather than his fame.

3. Tone and Language

    Hostile and Conspiratorial: The response is aggressive and drenched
    in conspiracy rhetoric.

    Bigoted Language: The antisemitic and ethnically charged language
    is inappropriate, offensive, and undermines any credibility Person
    B might have had.

    Use of "WOOF woof...": This undermines the seriousness of the
    argument further and reads as mocking or unhinged.

Overall Evaluation

Grade: F (or 1/10)

Person B’s response fails as a scientific rebuttal, devolves into
ethnically and religiously charged conspiracy theory, and reflects
deep bias and misunderstanding of the scientific process. It contains
no valid counter-argument and is primarily emotional and ideological
in nature, not rational or evidence-based.

If Person B wants to critique relativity or offer a defense of the
aether, they would need to:

    Engage respectfully.

    Present historical and scientific evidence.

    Avoid bigoted generalizations and conspiracy theories.

Without that, the response has no place in serious discourse.

--
penninojim@yahoo.com