Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles?

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 23:06:50 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> 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.
>
>
>

People are so scientifically ignorant that they can be taxed for vast
research grants on the pretext that space expands and is curved.

>
Apparently, all the experiments and math are beyond your comprhension.

Clearly, you have not comprehended the logic.
Einstein's derivation of the doubling involved the petitio principii of
presuming parallel lines meet to conclude space curves. Math cannot bend
space because space is not a surface. That would be the reification
fallacy. The math is non-Euclidean and only valid for surfaces other
than plane surfaces. Relativity predicts that if parallel lines meet,
then space is curved, and light is deflected by curved space. The
derivation is not valid because space does not bend.
Do you think the experiments have proven that parallel lines meet? They
would have to meet for space to curve. You are not addressing the issue,
which is not the experiments but the derivation. Experiments cannot
prove the derivation is sound. I have shown it is not sound and cannot
predict. Non-Euclidean math is well-known and irrelevant because it
cannot cause space to curve. The Einstein equation merely differs from
the Newtonian by
changing the "2" into a "4." The problem is that it is a non-Euclidean
curved space. That is fiction.