Re: Relativity Refuted by Elementary Logic

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 9:27:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
 

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

On 2024-11-14 21:48:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>

Jan: An inconsistent theory does not predict. Relativity is an ideology,
so you are ironically projecting your faults onto others. Then you don't
know what you are defending because you can't tell me what it predicts.

>
No quoted text, no reply,

>
Not even an indication of which Jan he is referring to. Can he not know
that we have two sane people of that name here?

>
Yes. The LCC entity often picks up some trigger word to go of on a rant
of its own, with little or no relation to the input.
>
It would be best if we all stopped replying to such postings.
This is just a plainly wrong idea of usenet posting, so abuse,

 
I prefer responding to those of us who evidently "once upon a time"
were bright, highly accomplished individuals, but who in their
retirement years have become consumed by an obsession against SR
and/or Einstein. In a quarter century of visiting these newsgroups,
I have actually witnessed a single fringe poster make his way back
to sanity. It is my hope to witness such a phenomenon again.

I did read somewhere about some succes using an AI bot.
The AI knows all the standard arguments, and has a vast store of
responses and refutations.
And it does not automatically generate an adversarial attitude.

But what is more, it has infinite stamina,
it will go on with more counter arguments, it will remain friendly,
and it also has an infinite capacity for suffering fools gladly.
Report of a pilot study at
<https://www.fastcompany.com/91203559/how-chatbots-can-win-over-crackpots>

Jan