Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles?

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

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, clzb93ynxj@att.net (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:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>

On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

>
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.
>
>
>

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.

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.

>
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They
will
never intersect.

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
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...

Fields can curve while space cannot.

>
"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.

 
Still you are.
 

Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"

 
A lie. Of course.

 
Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".

Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
(nothing about // lines intersecting at infinity)
It becomes a theorem that there are lines that do not intersect.

Jan