1. It attempts to explain gravity through the equivalence principle, which is merely a similarity, and by the reification fallacy of curved space.

2. It is maintained to be the only explanation for the rate of cesium clocks in orbit.

3. It falsely claims to uphold Galileo and Eotvos while flouting them.

4. The highly ad hoc claims of special relativity are allegedly rescued by the ad hoc assertions of general relativity.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

On 1/22/24 9:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> [... complete nonsense]

You REALLY do not understand basic physics. Grow up. Find a hobby more
suited to your abilities (or lack thereof).

Tom Roberts

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:16:00 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/22/24 9:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > [... complete nonsense]
>
> You REALLY do not understand basic physics. Grow up. Find a hobby more
> suited to your abilities (or lack thereof).
>
> Tom Roberts
As usual, you fail to give any direct answer because you can't even address questions about logic. Instead, you conflate models with the reification fallacy. Speak of stupidity!

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 10:23:02 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:16:00 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 1/22/24 9:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > [... complete nonsense]
> >
> > You REALLY do not understand basic physics. Grow up. Find a hobby more
> > suited to your abilities (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> As usual, you fail to give any direct answer because you can't even address questions about logic. Instead, you conflate models with the reification fallacy. Speak of stupidity!

Rather, you have proven yourself incapable of understanding
even grossly simplified attempts at addressing your
misunderstandings of basic physics.
Give it up. You have nothing to contribute to the subject.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:49:08 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 10:23:02 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:16:00 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 1/22/24 9:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > [... complete nonsense]
> > >
> > > You REALLY do not understand basic physics. Grow up. Find a hobby more
> > > suited to your abilities (or lack thereof).
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > As usual, you fail to give any direct answer because you can't even address questions about logic. Instead, you conflate models with the reification fallacy. Speak of stupidity!
> Rather, you have proven yourself incapable of understanding
> even grossly simplified attempts at addressing your
> misunderstandings of basic physics.
> Give it up. You have nothing to contribute to the subject.
You and Tom have not directly addressed the logical issues you are incapable of understanding them.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:16:00 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/22/24 9:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > [... complete nonsense]
>
> You REALLY do not understand basic physics. Grow up. Find a hobby more
> suited to your abilities (or lack thereof).
>
> Tom Roberts
Models are not reification fallacy. A model is an abstraction, not a reification fallacy. Models involving the reification fallacy are illogical and invalid models. You have conflated the fallacy with abstractions without the fallacy. You are confusing math with physics; many excellent scientists have commented on this unfortunate tendency in physics over the past 100 years. These mistakes are utterly stupid. Accepting relativity involves making these mistakes. It takes an imbecile to do that (less than 70 IQ). Even a child knows the difference, and this gets laughs at a clown show when the clown bumps into an abstraction. You sill have not mustered a reply to the criticism that curved space is a fallacious and nonsensical concept involving reification fallacy.

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 05:49:08 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 10:23:02 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 8:16:00 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 1/22/24 9:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > [... complete nonsense]
> > >
> > > You REALLY do not understand basic physics. Grow up. Find a hobby more
> > > suited to your abilities (or lack thereof).
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > As usual, you fail to give any direct answer because you can't even address questions about logic. Instead, you conflate models with the reification fallacy. Speak of stupidity!
> Rather, you have proven yourself incapable of understanding
> even grossly simplified attempts at addressing your
> misunderstandings of basic physics.

Take your "basic physics" and put it straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs. It's blind faith,
fanatism, incompetence - and, of course, a lot of
wise faces.

Larry, you're overly hung-up on this baloney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Use_of_constructs_in_science

"The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science; it is used in many,
if not most, areas of science."

"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)."

"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'."

The fact is, you have NOTHING but models of reality. Your mind builds models of
the real world ad infinitum. You can't name even one thing that's authentic
because all you have are thoughts in your head. Some of them seem to be in good
agreement with what's out there ... and some of them aren't. In your case, MANY
of them aren't.

gharnagel wrote:

> Larry, you're overly hung-up on this baloney.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Reification_(fallacy)#Use_of_constructs_in_science

> The fact is, you have NOTHING but models of reality. Your mind builds
> models of the real world ad infinitum. You can't name even one thing
> that's authentic because all you have are thoughts in your head. Some
> of them seem to be in good agreement with what's out there ... and some
> of them aren't. In your case, MANY of them aren't.

absolutely. Finally a physicist undrestanding relativity and the speeds of
light, which only has to be smaller.

𝙐𝙠𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚_𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙_𝙋𝙊𝙒𝙨_𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝_𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣_𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙚_–_𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙝_𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚_𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 lol
The US has not commented on the attack, which left 74 people dead
https://r%74.com/news/591286-ukraine-patriot-missile-plane/

Yet they blame Iran for supposedly supplying their missiles to Hezbollah

Well, it appear that the the Liptsy suburb of Kharkov needs a good heavy
bombing to eliminate the US supplied terrorists.

The realistic scenario is that the plane was shot down by Washington DC.

Israel gains favor by the Washington psychopaths by murdering its own
citizen hostages, why can't Ukraine?

On 2024-01-23 03:49:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> 1. It attempts to explain gravity through the equivalence principle,
> which is merely a similarity, and by the reification fallacy of curved
> space.

Reification is not a fallacy. It is a linguistic device that can be
used in order to simplify presentations. Another similar device is
personification. In some loanguages those devices are common and
readers and listeners are expected to understand them.

Mikko