info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Latest measurements of c, h and G "universal" constanst. Some doubts.
146 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 1:20:47 AM8/10/21
to
First, a recap of the scenario at which we live in.
1) The structure of modern physics is built with a vital dependence about
the certainty of "universal properties" of three fundamental constants,
which are c, h and G.
Any failure of their universal character would completely ruin the physics
developments of the last 100 years, forcing to establish their reach as local.
2) So far, the known "visible" universe (Hubble's one) has a radius of about
13.5 bly (1.28×10^23 km) and involves a linear backward timeline of about
13,500 millions of years (1.35×10^13 years), all of this referenced to the
Earth. These are distances and age in the macro-cosmos (since us).
In the world of the micro-cosmos, depth challenging our observational
power, start at 10^-10 mt (used as average size of atoms), continues
down to 10^-15 mt (the only accepted size for the classical radius of
the electron, not the real as a particle), and goes down hundred of
thousand of times for "elementary particles and sub-particles".
3) The old methods for measuring the three constants have evolved
substantially in the last 100 years. Now, national organizations like
NIST at US, have developed techniques similar to those used in other
countries to measure them, and the results are accepted as universal
by a worldwide accepted organization BIPM (Bureau International des
Poids et Mesures), with more than 63 member states (like US).
The MKS system of units (SI) is maintained at BIPM, with member's
agreement.
Besides many other units of measures and values, values of constants
like c, h, e, k, NA, cesium clock preferred resonant frequency and many
others are displayed at the BIMP site for everyone who want to check them.
https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-defining-constants
With the above background, now to the point.
**************************************************************************
Chapter 1: the measure of the value of c.
The last (1983) and currently accepted value of c is 299792458 mt/sec,
with ZERO ERROR, as it was accepted to write it into stone.
And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
Now, the preferred method to measure c is laser interferometry, measuring
null results of interferometry between two paths of a laser beam (one direct
and the other diverged and refocused using mirrors).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants
Now, the centuries old method of measure one way velocity, V=X/T, has been
abandoned in this method, as X is replaced by N wavelengths and T by the
multiple ticks of an atomic clock.
The problem here is recursion, and always has been. There are no independent
sources of length and time to measure c. Time unit of 1 second is tied to the
measurement of the frequency of a cesium atomic clock (10^-12 stability), but
there is not a source of higher quality to clock the frequency meter. So, a time
unit is WHAT IT IS, as defined at BIMP, and unquestionable by any mortal.
The problem with distance X is that its measurement is poisoned by the null
results at the detector in the interferometer. There is not a way to account
how many wavelengths have been skipped to get a null result, and the error
is contained in the range of one part in 10^10.
And I quote BIMP:
"The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s–1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs."
And this is a blatant recursion, a loop. The meter is defined by the speed of
light c, which is defined by the value of one meter, obtained by multiple wavelengths of a cesium clock, which is used to time the value of c, etc.....
So, no direct and one-way measurement of the speed of light has been performed and its value is settled as exact, without chances to dispute it.
I wonder what would happen with a measurement made 1bly far away. Would
it give the same value? And 10 bly far away? And, also, how would we know
the results? Waiting billion of years till they arrive at Earth? Nonsense.
So, the unobservability of such UNIVERSAL CONSTANT put its value in the
realm of fairies and their tells.
***************************************************************************
Chapter 2: the measure of the value of h.
The current accepted value of h is 6.62607015 x 10^–34 J/s (BIMP, NIST).
Leaving behind the century old value determined by Planck, relating it to a
relationship between NA and R (R is the Regnault’s constant), whom also
found the value of kB, the latest method involves several values of constants
within the MKS SI. Of course, c is one of them.
I quote, for the sake of brevity, this article:
Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/aa7bf2
"This article summarizes measurements that were carried out with the Kibble balance, NIST-4, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from December 22, 2015 to April 30, 2017. A detailed description of NIST-4 and a first determination of the Planck constant h with a relative standard uncertainty of 34x10^{-9} can be found in [1]."
....................
"The result is based on over 10,000 weighings of masses with nominal values ranging from 0.5 kg to 2 kg with the Kibble balance NIST-4."
...................
"Common to NIST-1 through NIST-4 is that a wheel is used for both the balancing and moving mechanisms. The wheel pivots about a knife edge collinear with the wheel's central axis. A measurement coil and test mass are suspended from one side of the wheel while a tare mass is suspended from the other via multi-filament bands. The tare mass includes a small motor consisting of a coil in a permanent magnet system, similar in design but much smaller than the main magnet, for generating a force to rotate the wheel. The benefit of a wheel versus a traditional balance beam is that the former prescribes a pure vertical motion for the suspended coil whereas the latter traces an arc.
The measurement is performed in two modes: force and velocity mode. In force mode, a current I in a coil with a wire length l immersed in a radial magnetic field with magnetic flux density B is controlled such that the balance wheel remains at a constant angle chosen by the operator. While the balance wheel is servo controlled, a mass standard with a mass m, typically 1 kg, can be placed on or removed from the mass pan."
.........................
"Three mounting plates made from $25.4~$ mm thick aluminium, each supporting one interferometer and turning mirrors, were mated to the base plate through kinematic mounts."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So, laser wavelengths, newtonian mechanics and maxwellian electromagnetic
forces and else are used in this complex arrangement.
Once again, recursive methods are at plain sight and the questions about how
it would perform very, very far from here are the same as with c.
Universal constants? I highly doubt it.
*******************************************************************************
Chapter 3: the measure of the value of G.
G and c are vital values for relativity. Any fail of its universal constancy makes
the theory collapse.
I'm using this article, very new, among many available:
Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/12/1803/5874900
"The latest recommended value for G published by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) is (6.67408 ± 0.00031) × 10^−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2 with a relative uncertainty of 47 parts per million."
.....................
"The Newtonian gravitational constant G, which is one of the most important fundamental physical constants in nature, plays a significant role in the fields of theoretical physics, geophysics, astrophysics and astronomy. Although G was the first physical constant to be introduced in the history of science, it is considered to be one of the most difficult to measure accurately so far."
...................
"To date, there is no quantitatively theoretical relationship between the Newtonian gravitational constant and other fundamental constants. Scientists can only measure the gravitational constant through Newton’s law of universal gravitation. One of the greatest difficulties in any G measurement is determining with sufficient accuracy of the dimensions and density distribution of the test mass and attractor mass."
........................
"The phenomenon of inconsistent measurements of G makes many scientists puzzled [45–49]. It is most likely that there might be some undiscovered systematic errors in some or all the G measurements. Our group has been dedicated to the precise measurement of G for over thirty years. In 2018, G values measured with two independent methods, the time-of-swing (ToS) method and angular acceleration feedback (AAF) method, were obtained with the smallest uncertainty reported to date and both agreed with the CODATA 2014 recommended value to within two standard deviations [50]. The thirteen values of the Newtonian gravitational constant [30–44,50,51] measured after 2000 are listed in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 2."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, science doesn't know the real value of G and, even more, if it poses universal constancy (within error margins).
The same questions about its value very, very far from here, remains as with
the first two.
So, I wonder. How solid is the building of physics upon these facts of dubious
universality of the three major constants in physics?
1) The structure of modern physics is built with a vital dependence about
the certainty of "universal properties" of three fundamental constants,
which are c, h and G.
Any failure of their universal character would completely ruin the physics
developments of the last 100 years, forcing to establish their reach as local.
2) So far, the known "visible" universe (Hubble's one) has a radius of about
13.5 bly (1.28×10^23 km) and involves a linear backward timeline of about
13,500 millions of years (1.35×10^13 years), all of this referenced to the
Earth. These are distances and age in the macro-cosmos (since us).
In the world of the micro-cosmos, depth challenging our observational
power, start at 10^-10 mt (used as average size of atoms), continues
down to 10^-15 mt (the only accepted size for the classical radius of
the electron, not the real as a particle), and goes down hundred of
thousand of times for "elementary particles and sub-particles".
3) The old methods for measuring the three constants have evolved
substantially in the last 100 years. Now, national organizations like
NIST at US, have developed techniques similar to those used in other
countries to measure them, and the results are accepted as universal
by a worldwide accepted organization BIPM (Bureau International des
Poids et Mesures), with more than 63 member states (like US).
The MKS system of units (SI) is maintained at BIPM, with member's
agreement.
Besides many other units of measures and values, values of constants
like c, h, e, k, NA, cesium clock preferred resonant frequency and many
others are displayed at the BIMP site for everyone who want to check them.
https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-defining-constants
With the above background, now to the point.
**************************************************************************
Chapter 1: the measure of the value of c.
The last (1983) and currently accepted value of c is 299792458 mt/sec,
with ZERO ERROR, as it was accepted to write it into stone.
And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
Now, the preferred method to measure c is laser interferometry, measuring
null results of interferometry between two paths of a laser beam (one direct
and the other diverged and refocused using mirrors).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants
Now, the centuries old method of measure one way velocity, V=X/T, has been
abandoned in this method, as X is replaced by N wavelengths and T by the
multiple ticks of an atomic clock.
The problem here is recursion, and always has been. There are no independent
sources of length and time to measure c. Time unit of 1 second is tied to the
measurement of the frequency of a cesium atomic clock (10^-12 stability), but
there is not a source of higher quality to clock the frequency meter. So, a time
unit is WHAT IT IS, as defined at BIMP, and unquestionable by any mortal.
The problem with distance X is that its measurement is poisoned by the null
results at the detector in the interferometer. There is not a way to account
how many wavelengths have been skipped to get a null result, and the error
is contained in the range of one part in 10^10.
And I quote BIMP:
"The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit m s–1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs."
And this is a blatant recursion, a loop. The meter is defined by the speed of
light c, which is defined by the value of one meter, obtained by multiple wavelengths of a cesium clock, which is used to time the value of c, etc.....
So, no direct and one-way measurement of the speed of light has been performed and its value is settled as exact, without chances to dispute it.
I wonder what would happen with a measurement made 1bly far away. Would
it give the same value? And 10 bly far away? And, also, how would we know
the results? Waiting billion of years till they arrive at Earth? Nonsense.
So, the unobservability of such UNIVERSAL CONSTANT put its value in the
realm of fairies and their tells.
***************************************************************************
Chapter 2: the measure of the value of h.
The current accepted value of h is 6.62607015 x 10^–34 J/s (BIMP, NIST).
Leaving behind the century old value determined by Planck, relating it to a
relationship between NA and R (R is the Regnault’s constant), whom also
found the value of kB, the latest method involves several values of constants
within the MKS SI. Of course, c is one of them.
I quote, for the sake of brevity, this article:
Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/aa7bf2
"This article summarizes measurements that were carried out with the Kibble balance, NIST-4, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from December 22, 2015 to April 30, 2017. A detailed description of NIST-4 and a first determination of the Planck constant h with a relative standard uncertainty of 34x10^{-9} can be found in [1]."
....................
"The result is based on over 10,000 weighings of masses with nominal values ranging from 0.5 kg to 2 kg with the Kibble balance NIST-4."
...................
"Common to NIST-1 through NIST-4 is that a wheel is used for both the balancing and moving mechanisms. The wheel pivots about a knife edge collinear with the wheel's central axis. A measurement coil and test mass are suspended from one side of the wheel while a tare mass is suspended from the other via multi-filament bands. The tare mass includes a small motor consisting of a coil in a permanent magnet system, similar in design but much smaller than the main magnet, for generating a force to rotate the wheel. The benefit of a wheel versus a traditional balance beam is that the former prescribes a pure vertical motion for the suspended coil whereas the latter traces an arc.
The measurement is performed in two modes: force and velocity mode. In force mode, a current I in a coil with a wire length l immersed in a radial magnetic field with magnetic flux density B is controlled such that the balance wheel remains at a constant angle chosen by the operator. While the balance wheel is servo controlled, a mass standard with a mass m, typically 1 kg, can be placed on or removed from the mass pan."
.........................
"Three mounting plates made from $25.4~$ mm thick aluminium, each supporting one interferometer and turning mirrors, were mated to the base plate through kinematic mounts."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So, laser wavelengths, newtonian mechanics and maxwellian electromagnetic
forces and else are used in this complex arrangement.
Once again, recursive methods are at plain sight and the questions about how
it would perform very, very far from here are the same as with c.
Universal constants? I highly doubt it.
*******************************************************************************
Chapter 3: the measure of the value of G.
G and c are vital values for relativity. Any fail of its universal constancy makes
the theory collapse.
I'm using this article, very new, among many available:
Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/12/1803/5874900
"The latest recommended value for G published by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) is (6.67408 ± 0.00031) × 10^−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2 with a relative uncertainty of 47 parts per million."
.....................
"The Newtonian gravitational constant G, which is one of the most important fundamental physical constants in nature, plays a significant role in the fields of theoretical physics, geophysics, astrophysics and astronomy. Although G was the first physical constant to be introduced in the history of science, it is considered to be one of the most difficult to measure accurately so far."
...................
"To date, there is no quantitatively theoretical relationship between the Newtonian gravitational constant and other fundamental constants. Scientists can only measure the gravitational constant through Newton’s law of universal gravitation. One of the greatest difficulties in any G measurement is determining with sufficient accuracy of the dimensions and density distribution of the test mass and attractor mass."
........................
"The phenomenon of inconsistent measurements of G makes many scientists puzzled [45–49]. It is most likely that there might be some undiscovered systematic errors in some or all the G measurements. Our group has been dedicated to the precise measurement of G for over thirty years. In 2018, G values measured with two independent methods, the time-of-swing (ToS) method and angular acceleration feedback (AAF) method, were obtained with the smallest uncertainty reported to date and both agreed with the CODATA 2014 recommended value to within two standard deviations [50]. The thirteen values of the Newtonian gravitational constant [30–44,50,51] measured after 2000 are listed in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 2."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, science doesn't know the real value of G and, even more, if it poses universal constancy (within error margins).
The same questions about its value very, very far from here, remains as with
the first two.
So, I wonder. How solid is the building of physics upon these facts of dubious
universality of the three major constants in physics?
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 1:52:25 AM8/10/21
to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:20:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
> as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
>
> Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
> constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
>
There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
>
> And it has to be exact, with zero error, because the SI meter unit is valued
> as the path traveled in euclidean space during 1/299792458 seconds.
>
> Do you see a circular method here? In similar ways, other values of
> constants in the MKS SI standard are developed.
>
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 2:11:06 AM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:52:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
Read again what you wrote, fucking piece of genetical mutation from human to slug.
> There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
You can't even count 1, 2, 3,..
Which two, retarded? "The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first TWO."
What comes first to you: chicken or egg?
Idiot!
Sylvia Else
Aug 10, 2021, 2:18:17 AM8/10/21
to
But a system of of units is convenient to have. With all the evidence
pointing to the speed of light in a vacuum being a constant, it makes
sense to use it as a starting point.
This doesn't mean that we'd be forever more incapable of noticing if the
speed of light varied - that would show up as discrepancies in
measurements of length.
As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
The only people who worry about the whole edifice collapsing are those
who do not understand how it was constructed.
Sylvia.
Maciej Wozniak
Aug 10, 2021, 2:26:15 AM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 08:18:17 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Physics is not built on units.
Oh yes, lady, it is.
> Physics is not built on units.
> But a system of of units is convenient to have. With all the evidence
> pointing to the speed of light in a vacuum being a constant, it makes
> sense to use it as a starting point.
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 2:28:37 AM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
<snip>
> The only people who worry about the whole edifice collapsing are those
> who do not understand how it was constructed.
Specially the new kids in the block of physics since the '60s, like Gell-Man, Hawkings, Susskind,
Guth and many others, in particular Sheldon Cooper.
<snip>
> The only people who worry about the whole edifice collapsing are those
> who do not understand how it was constructed.
Guth and many others, in particular Sheldon Cooper.
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 2:41:53 AM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.
Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when wrong! What a dogma!
Odd Bodkin
Aug 10, 2021, 9:02:37 AM8/10/21
to
current units standards in place. That is because it was measured PRIOR to
that definition of the meter to sufficient reliability that no one on the
international panel of scientists, metrologists, and engineers thought it
necessary to measure it further. The fact that you are unconvinced is
completely irrelevant.
As for the statement about there being no one-way measurement of light
speed, that is simply untrue. As for high precision measurements, however,
the one-way measurement is decidedly not the best approach and so is not
needed.
>
> I wonder what would happen with a measurement made 1bly far away. Would
> it give the same value? And 10 bly far away? And, also, how would we know
> the results? Waiting billion of years till they arrive at Earth? Nonsense.
>
> So, the unobservability of such UNIVERSAL CONSTANT put its value in the
> realm of fairies and their tells.
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Chapter 2: the measure of the value of h.
>
> The current accepted value of h is 6.62607015 x 10^–34 J/s (BIMP, NIST).
there is uncertainty about what the value of a physical number is
waaaaaaaaay beyond our range of observability, we should not assume or
claim it is a constant at all. For what purpose? Just to pose the question?
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Chapter 3: the measure of the value of G.
>
> G and c are vital values for relativity. Any fail of its universal constancy makes
> the theory collapse.
What you are saying is that if the value should be different OUTSIDE that
domain of testability, then the theory would not apply outside that
testable domain. This you interpret as “collapse”. Don’t be silly. A theory
is meaningless outside a domain of testability. What’s your attempted
point, other than the one on the top of your head?
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
Aug 10, 2021, 9:02:37 AM8/10/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
>> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
>> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
>> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
>> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
>
> But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
> from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
> the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.
I’m not sure what is appalling to you. Is it the popular hype and the
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:18:17 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> As for G, if it turned out not to be a constant over time or space, that
>> would not make relativity "collapse". It would merely mean that some
>> additional terms were required, terms which become negligible over
>> smaller times and distances. This would be analogous to the
>> modifications to Newtonian mechananics that give special relativity.
>
> But the insistence with applying GR and derivates to analyze the universe, its "evolution
> from a Big Bang", singularities of GR approximate solutions to "create" black holes and
> the hype behind them, among many other things, is appalling.
layman’s sense of mystique about these things? Or is what’s appalling to
you the thought of even entertaining the idea that black holes exist?
If it’s the former, then blame laypeople for being interested in things
that don’t interest you.
If it’s the latter, then the question of existence is settled just by
observational evidence. If the evidence supports the existence of black
holes, then it’s simply silly to insist that they are nonsense and should
not be even considered possible. Or maybe you are saying that no one should
even attempt to COLLECT the observational evidence, as it’s a waste of time
to look for evidence of new and surprising things.
>
> Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when wrong! What a dogma!
>
>
>
>
Message has been deleted
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 12:17:10 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 7:13:54 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> 2. The speed of light is also defined
> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>
> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:11:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:52:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
> > Read again what you wrote
> Cretinoid,
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:52:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is nothing "circular", utter imbecile. The second is defined, so is the speed of light and the meter is derived from the first two. You are just a sad sack cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
> > Read again what you wrote
>
> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> 2. The speed of light is also defined
> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>
> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 3:54:56 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
< snip>
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> > 2. The speed of light is also defined
> > 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
> >
> > Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR. The value of the measured frequency f is derived from measurements with a frequency meter, which has a timing reference LINKED to the BIMP standard (caesium --> rubidium --> quartz TCXO --> ceramic oscillator --> other LC circuits).
Cesium- based atomic clock frequency of 9.192631770 Gigahertz corresponds to the transition between
two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The adoption of the cesium oscillator the primary standard for
time and frequency measurements was defined in 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), which is
a section of the BIMP. It was added that this choice refers to a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of absolute zero.
The frequency uncertainty of this clock has been measured as lower than 2×10^−16 (NIST, CIPM), for which it is expected for the
standard caesium clock to neither gain nor lose a second in about 138 million years.
https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/
IN CONTRAST, the speed of light in vacuum has been settled (BIMP, NIST) as EXACT (this means NO ERROR) and written into stone
as 299792458 mt/sec, averaging different results and bringing peace to a dilemma in science. And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
by consensus among peers. No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what it is, and that's it.
As shown in Wikipedia, the modern history of measurements of the speed of light had a WIDE RANGE of uncertainty on its value,
as a result of different techniques being used looking for a better value (interferometry, cavity resonance, electromagnetic constants).
Due to the lack of confidence on such values, a decision was made by BIMP and other bodies of standards, to adopt WITHOUT ERRORS,
the current value as an average of measurements using interferometry.
Here are different values, commonly used at each recent epoch:
1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator 299792.5±3.0 +0.14 ppm error
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry 299792.50±0.10 +0.14 ppm error
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry 299792.4562±0.0011 ‒0.006 ppm error
1983 17th CGPM, definition of the metre 299792.458 (exact) exact, as defined
So, due to the impossibility to find a value of c within acceptable margins of errors, an average was ADOPTED BY FORCE,
with zero error, and settling that matter for the years to come.
But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because it's impossible for humans to get the exact
value of c in vacuum. So, this axiom helps to preserve modern physics results at any experiment but creates justified doubts
about its constancy at any place in the universe.
Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI constants is easily calculated.
See, Dono?
What you posted is false, as well as the values of "UNIVERSAL" constants. Now, do your usual charade, ranting over this.
< snip>
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> > 2. The speed of light is also defined
> > 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
> >
> > Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
Cesium- based atomic clock frequency of 9.192631770 Gigahertz corresponds to the transition between
two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The adoption of the cesium oscillator the primary standard for
time and frequency measurements was defined in 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), which is
a section of the BIMP. It was added that this choice refers to a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of absolute zero.
The frequency uncertainty of this clock has been measured as lower than 2×10^−16 (NIST, CIPM), for which it is expected for the
standard caesium clock to neither gain nor lose a second in about 138 million years.
https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/
IN CONTRAST, the speed of light in vacuum has been settled (BIMP, NIST) as EXACT (this means NO ERROR) and written into stone
as 299792458 mt/sec, averaging different results and bringing peace to a dilemma in science. And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
by consensus among peers. No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what it is, and that's it.
As shown in Wikipedia, the modern history of measurements of the speed of light had a WIDE RANGE of uncertainty on its value,
as a result of different techniques being used looking for a better value (interferometry, cavity resonance, electromagnetic constants).
Due to the lack of confidence on such values, a decision was made by BIMP and other bodies of standards, to adopt WITHOUT ERRORS,
the current value as an average of measurements using interferometry.
Here are different values, commonly used at each recent epoch:
1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator 299792.5±3.0 +0.14 ppm error
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry 299792.50±0.10 +0.14 ppm error
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry 299792.4562±0.0011 ‒0.006 ppm error
1983 17th CGPM, definition of the metre 299792.458 (exact) exact, as defined
So, due to the impossibility to find a value of c within acceptable margins of errors, an average was ADOPTED BY FORCE,
with zero error, and settling that matter for the years to come.
But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because it's impossible for humans to get the exact
value of c in vacuum. So, this axiom helps to preserve modern physics results at any experiment but creates justified doubts
about its constancy at any place in the universe.
Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI constants is easily calculated.
See, Dono?
What you posted is false, as well as the values of "UNIVERSAL" constants. Now, do your usual charade, ranting over this.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 10, 2021, 4:09:07 PM8/10/21
to
and the lack of interest in others to have that?
> And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
> by consensus among peers.
And you are raising your hand to say you object? Why?
> No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what
> it is, and that's it.
>
> As shown in Wikipedia, the modern history of measurements of the speed of
> light had a WIDE RANGE of uncertainty on its value,
> as a result of different techniques being used looking for a better value
> (interferometry, cavity resonance, electromagnetic constants).
> Due to the lack of confidence on such values, a decision was made by BIMP
> and other bodies of standards, to adopt WITHOUT ERRORS,
> the current value as an average of measurements using interferometry.
>
> Here are different values, commonly used at each recent epoch:
>
> 1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator
> 299792.5±3.0 +0.14 ppm error
> 1958 K.D. Froome, radio
> interferometry 299792.50±0.10 +0.14 ppm error
> 1972 Evenson et al., laser
> interferometry 299792.4562±0.0011 ‒0.006 ppm error
> 1983 17th CGPM, definition of the
> metre 299792.458 (exact) exact, as defined
>
> So, due to the impossibility to find a value of c within acceptable
> margins of errors, an average was ADOPTED BY FORCE,
> with zero error, and settling that matter for the years to come.
>
> But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because
> it's impossible for humans to get the exact
> value of c in vacuum.
uncertainty that is as large as the measured speed. This should make sense
to you. If the unit used only has a certain precision, then the best you’re
EVER going to do in measuring a quantity dependent on those units is an
error that arises dominantly from the error in those units.
So what? This then says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do better with the
measurement of c with units that have a certain precision, and that the
ONLY recourse is to define c and determine the units in terms of that, in
particular so that the unit with the best precision is the only limiting
factor.
This seems to elude you. Why?
> So, this axiom helps to preserve modern physics results at any experiment
> but creates justified doubts
> about its constancy at any place in the universe.
>
> Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI
> constants is easily calculated.
>
> See, Dono?
>
> What you posted is false, as well as the values of "UNIVERSAL" constants.
> Now, do your usual charade, ranting over this.
>
>
Michael Moroney
Aug 10, 2021, 4:57:50 PM8/10/21
to
On 8/10/2021 3:54 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>>> Cretinoid,
>>>
>>> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
>>> 2. The speed of light is also defined
>>> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>>>
>>> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
>
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR.
Given length, constant speed of light and time, any two of these can be
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>>> Cretinoid,
>>>
>>> 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
>>> 2. The speed of light is also defined
>>> 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
>>>
>>> Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
>
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR.
defined "arbitrarily" and the third must be defined in terms of the
other two. ("Arbitrarily" means physics places no restrictions on the
definitions of the units, however we humans do have other restrictions)
For example, we can define the meter however we want, then define the
speed of light how we want, but doing so defines the second. This hasn't
happened.
Or we can define the meter, define the second and from this the speed of
light gets defined for us. This is what was done before 1983.
Or we can define the second, define the speed of light and this defines
the meter. This is what happens after 1983.
It is fairly obvious that it's better that units of measurement should
be fundamentally derivable from physics alone rather than some rod or
weight in Paris somewhere. It also makes sense that fundamental
constants of physics should be exactly known, and physicists have been
trying to do this. This can't be done by measurement as there is always
an error in measurement. It can only be done by redefining a measurement
unit. This was most recently done in redefining the kilogram in terms
of fundamental constants. So it makes sense that if c is a fundamental
constant of physics, either the meter should be defined in terms of the
speed of light and the second, or the second redefined in terms of the
speed of light and the meter. The second has a very good definition,
the meter not so much so, so it was chosen to redefine the meter in
terms of c and the second for better accuracy.
Although I said the choices for two were arbitrary, in reality the
change shouldn't be disruptive. That is, the "new" meter should be as
close as possible to the "old" meter so that old measurements can be
used with the new definition without problems For that reason, the
then-best estimate of the speed of light using the then-best estimate of
the meter (so many wavelengths of a krypton light frequency) which is
how the magic number 299792458 came to be. Since we humans can measure
frequency more accurately than wavelength, this made the meter itself
more accurate. Laser light comparison by wavelength became 5 times more
accurate just by this definition.
Richard, before you go off with a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Einstein
rant, remember that Einstein didn't decide the speed of light was a
constant, he just used the existing science of his day where it was
measured to be constant, and declared that to be a postulate.
So now instead of an error in the length of the meter based on our
ability to measure a wavelength and a measured error in the speed of
light, we have only a meter error based on our ability to measure
frequency (much better than measuring length itself) and an EXACT
CONSTANT. Since, unlike yourself, physics doesn't have a hard-on
regarding Einstein, this is considered much better. They just did the
same regarding the kilogram and kg-derived units, too. I didn't see ONE
SINGLE POST in here complaining about that. The anti-Einstein nazis
didn't care.
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 5:24:53 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:54:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
> > > Cretinoid,
> > >
> > > 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> > > 2. The speed of light is also defined
> > > 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
> > >
> > > Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR.
Because it DOES Have zero error , imbecile.
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> < snip>
> > > Cretinoid,
> > >
> > > 1. The "second" is defined as function of the oscillation of the Cesium isotope
> > > 2. The speed of light is also defined
> > > 3. So, the meter results from the definitions of the items at points 1 and 2 above
> > >
> > > Richard Hertz gets to swallow another ladle of shit. Bon apetit, crank!
> The value of c has been defined by consensus and adopted as if it has ZERO ERROR.
> Cesium- based atomic clock frequency of 9.192631770 Gigahertz corresponds to the transition between
> two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The adoption of the cesium oscillator the primary standard for
> time and frequency measurements was defined in 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), which is
> a section of the BIMP. It was added that this choice refers to a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of absolute zero.
>
> The frequency uncertainty of this clock has been measured as lower than 2×10^−16 (NIST, CIPM), for which it is expected for the
> standard caesium clock to neither gain nor lose a second in about 138 million years.
>
> https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/
>
> IN CONTRAST, the speed of light in vacuum has been settled (BIMP, NIST) as EXACT (this means NO ERROR) and written into stone
> as 299792458 mt/sec, averaging different results and bringing peace to a dilemma in science. And this is ARBITRARY, just defined
> by consensus among peers. No errors allowed for the universal speed of light in vacuum. It is what it is, and that's it.
> But this value IS NOT A CONSTANT, it is AN AXIOMATIC DEFINITION, because it's impossible for humans to get the exact
> value of c in vacuum.
> Having settled the value of c (by law), the whole body of MKS SI constants is easily calculated.
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 7:13:50 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 6:24:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
<snip hideous and smelling shit from Dono>
Time ago I was wondering about how come physics and engineering of electricity and magnetism
managed to get out of the darkness that these nascent disciplines had to go through, without any
available means to measure and quantify what explorers were observing in the first decades of XIX century.
I started with the galvanometer, developed since Ørsted observed, in 1820, the deflection of a magnetic compass's
needle near a wire having electric current, and Ampere give mathematical explanations of this phenomenon, naming
the crude developed instrument after Galvani discovery of the effect of electricity on the muscles of a dead frog.
The first generation was extremely sensitive and had to be modified to tolerate higher currents, but there were no
standards for what was being measured. After Ohm's work with hundred of elements, in 1827 he published his findings,
coining the term "resistance" in what's called now Ohm's law (V=I.R). The need to measure in a standard way values
of resistance, voltage and current and, also, the need to have more exact, sensitive and portable instruments generated
advances in electrical instrumentation, which reached an incredible accuracy and ability to measure magnitudes within
ratios of one billion to one by the end of XIX century.
Controversies about adopting a standard for the value of the Ohm, between industrialists like von Siemens and physicists,
lasted several years, until Cambridge physicists came up with a definition of 1 Ohm, based on other magnitudes. Siemens
had proposed to adopt the resistance of a given column of mercury as a standard, which was rejected because it was
unscientific. Several systems (cgs, Gauss) were used, which contained magnitudes developed from values of mechanics.
For instance, the charge of one electron (1e) in Planck's time was valued in electrostatic units as 4.69x10^-10 g^1/2.cm^3/2.s^-1,
and so were valued the rest of electromagnetic standards. The introduction of the MKS system normalized this scenario by
the introduction of Coulombs, Amperes, Volts, Watts, Joules, etc. By then, the value of 1e of charge was changed to
1.565.10^-19 Coulombs (1.602.10^-19 C as of today).
So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
By then, interested in the evolution of the science of instrumentation, I read several books on the history of its development and,
in particular, this one:
Measurement, Instrumentation, and Sensors Handbook, Second Edition Spatial, Mechanical, Thermal, and Radiation Measurement
I quote this excerpt from it:
"At one time, the basis for length was supposed to be a fraction of the circumference of the earth, but it was “maintained” by the
use of a platinum/iridium bar. Time was maintained by a pendulum clock but was defined as a fraction of the day and so on.
Today, the meter is no longer defined by an artifact. Now, the meter is the distance that light travels in an exactly defined
fraction of a second.
Since the speed of light in a vacuum ********* is now defined as a constant of nature with a specified numerical value**********
(299,792,458 m/s), the definition of the unit of length is no longer independent of the definition of the unit of time."
Do you get it? FIXED as a constant of nature, not measured.
Problem solved, troubles swept under the carpet, and let's continue.
But the speed of light, c, has not been adopted as a measured standard, which poses many problems.
About 8 years ago, a news from CERN hit the front pages: °the speed of light has been broken in an experiment !"
A difference in the order of nanoseconds less than the expected delay was later attributed to a faulty connector, but
even such a minuscule difference shocked scientists.
So, as long as the value of c is FIXED and not derived from the correct design of the experiments to measure it for good,
things will remain confuse, when working on the limits of accuracy at physics or engineering.
I stand in my position of recursion and floppiness in the adoption of an arbitrary value for c (within ranges of previous
measurements).
<snip hideous and smelling shit from Dono>
Time ago I was wondering about how come physics and engineering of electricity and magnetism
managed to get out of the darkness that these nascent disciplines had to go through, without any
available means to measure and quantify what explorers were observing in the first decades of XIX century.
I started with the galvanometer, developed since Ørsted observed, in 1820, the deflection of a magnetic compass's
needle near a wire having electric current, and Ampere give mathematical explanations of this phenomenon, naming
the crude developed instrument after Galvani discovery of the effect of electricity on the muscles of a dead frog.
The first generation was extremely sensitive and had to be modified to tolerate higher currents, but there were no
standards for what was being measured. After Ohm's work with hundred of elements, in 1827 he published his findings,
coining the term "resistance" in what's called now Ohm's law (V=I.R). The need to measure in a standard way values
of resistance, voltage and current and, also, the need to have more exact, sensitive and portable instruments generated
advances in electrical instrumentation, which reached an incredible accuracy and ability to measure magnitudes within
ratios of one billion to one by the end of XIX century.
Controversies about adopting a standard for the value of the Ohm, between industrialists like von Siemens and physicists,
lasted several years, until Cambridge physicists came up with a definition of 1 Ohm, based on other magnitudes. Siemens
had proposed to adopt the resistance of a given column of mercury as a standard, which was rejected because it was
unscientific. Several systems (cgs, Gauss) were used, which contained magnitudes developed from values of mechanics.
For instance, the charge of one electron (1e) in Planck's time was valued in electrostatic units as 4.69x10^-10 g^1/2.cm^3/2.s^-1,
and so were valued the rest of electromagnetic standards. The introduction of the MKS system normalized this scenario by
the introduction of Coulombs, Amperes, Volts, Watts, Joules, etc. By then, the value of 1e of charge was changed to
1.565.10^-19 Coulombs (1.602.10^-19 C as of today).
So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
By then, interested in the evolution of the science of instrumentation, I read several books on the history of its development and,
in particular, this one:
Measurement, Instrumentation, and Sensors Handbook, Second Edition Spatial, Mechanical, Thermal, and Radiation Measurement
I quote this excerpt from it:
"At one time, the basis for length was supposed to be a fraction of the circumference of the earth, but it was “maintained” by the
use of a platinum/iridium bar. Time was maintained by a pendulum clock but was defined as a fraction of the day and so on.
Today, the meter is no longer defined by an artifact. Now, the meter is the distance that light travels in an exactly defined
fraction of a second.
Since the speed of light in a vacuum ********* is now defined as a constant of nature with a specified numerical value**********
(299,792,458 m/s), the definition of the unit of length is no longer independent of the definition of the unit of time."
Do you get it? FIXED as a constant of nature, not measured.
Problem solved, troubles swept under the carpet, and let's continue.
But the speed of light, c, has not been adopted as a measured standard, which poses many problems.
About 8 years ago, a news from CERN hit the front pages: °the speed of light has been broken in an experiment !"
A difference in the order of nanoseconds less than the expected delay was later attributed to a faulty connector, but
even such a minuscule difference shocked scientists.
So, as long as the value of c is FIXED and not derived from the correct design of the experiments to measure it for good,
things will remain confuse, when working on the limits of accuracy at physics or engineering.
I stand in my position of recursion and floppiness in the adoption of an arbitrary value for c (within ranges of previous
measurements).
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 7:29:57 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:13:50 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
>
False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.
>
> So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
>
>
> Since the speed of light in a vacuum ********* is now defined as a constant of nature with a specified numerical value**********
> (299,792,458 m/s), the definition of the unit of length is no longer independent of the definition of the unit of time."
>
> Problem solved, troubles swept under the carpet, and let's continue.
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 7:54:02 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:29:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> > So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
> >
> False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.
What an imbecile, liar, cretin and fallacious you are.
> >
> False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.
Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
who was a hobbyist.
There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
Basil Mahon
Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 7:59:09 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:54:02 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:29:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
> > >
> > False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.
> What an imbecile, liar, cretin and fallacious you are.
>
> Maxwell himself,
Err, 160 years passed since Maxwell, you are showing your ignorance. Again. Have another spoonful, crank.
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:29:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > So, never before, the value of the magnitude of one constant WAS FIXED.
> > >
> > False, imbecile, the values of the void permeability and permitivity were fixed just the same. Swallow some more shit.
> What an imbecile, liar, cretin and fallacious you are.
>
> Maxwell himself,
Richard Hertz
Aug 10, 2021, 7:59:47 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
> Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
> earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
> who was a hobbyist.
>
> There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
> measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
>
> Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
>
> The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
> Basil Mahon
> Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.
The third place is for the Prince of Mathematics, Gauss.
The fourth place goes to Euler, the father of modern mathematics.
No place for Einstein among the first ten.
<snip>
> Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
> earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
> who was a hobbyist.
>
> There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
> measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
>
> Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
>
> The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
> Basil Mahon
> Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
The third place is for the Prince of Mathematics, Gauss.
The fourth place goes to Euler, the father of modern mathematics.
No place for Einstein among the first ten.
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 8:03:01 PM8/10/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:59:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
> > earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
> > who was a hobbyist.
> >
> > There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
> > measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
> >
> > Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
> >
> > The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
> > Basil Mahon
> > Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
> And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.
No one denies it. Point was that you were exposed as being full of shit. Once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability#The_ampere-defined_vacuum_permeability.
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
> > earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
> > who was a hobbyist.
> >
> > There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
> > measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the experiment and obtain better values.
> >
> > Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
> >
> > The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
> > Basil Mahon
> > Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
> And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.
Sylvia Else
Aug 10, 2021, 9:06:32 PM8/10/21
to
The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
wrong in this respect. But they were found.
Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
Sylvia.
Dono.
Aug 10, 2021, 9:27:38 PM8/10/21
to
mitchr...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2021, 10:56:18 PM8/10/21
to
C is a collective measurement making light speed known only as an average.
How do you measure G? Where has that been done?
Continuity is better than h... EM waves have single energies...
Mitchell Raemsch
How do you measure G? Where has that been done?
Continuity is better than h... EM waves have single energies...
Mitchell Raemsch
Richard Hertz
Aug 11, 2021, 12:19:47 AM8/11/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:06:32 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> What would you prefer? That we shouldn't have a theory at all?
>
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
> If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
> certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
> wrong in this respect. But they were found.
>
> Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia, when Einstein's GR was published early in 1916, the Universe was believed
>
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
> If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
> certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
> wrong in this respect. But they were found.
>
> Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
>
> Sylvia.
to be (by most scientists) our Milky Way galaxy. His size, earlier determined by the
genius of Schwartschild (the very first cosmology in history) in 1900 was thought
to be no as no more than 8,000 lightyears (or 1.6x10^8 au. In that foundational paper,
Schwartschild studied chances for the "world" to be Euclidean and elliptic or hyperbolic.
`On the permissible curvature of space' by K Schwarzschild'
http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~jmy/documents/publications/On%20the%20permissible%20curvature%20of%20space.pdf
Einstein believed that such universe was static, euclidean and flat. So, when Schwartschild
wrote to him by the end of 1915 about his famous solution for the gravitational field in GR, and
applied it to Mercury's perihelion, Einstein was shocked that an exact analytical solution of his equations
could be obtained, specially in the very short time that it took to Schwartschild to develop it.
Nor him neither Einstein paid any attention to the additional singularity far from the origin. After Schwartschild
death, only four months later, this thing was forgotten until 1917, when a colleague of him took the
published paper to Hilbert, at Göttingen, where Schwartschild had studied. Hilbert found one mistake about
the alleged coordinates of origin, made a correction and re-published the solution naming them after Schwartschild,
in tribute to him.
Nothing happened with this solution for more than 40 years, when the 2nd. singularity caught the attention of an
american physicist, who believed that it represented something else than infinity. In 1963, Kerr found a second exact
solution while theories about black holes started to gain momentum and involve people like Hawkings. By the late '70s,
the name "black holes" and its alleged properties started to abound in many papers. By 1978, Disney launched a film
with the name "The black hole", premiered in London which expanded the concept within scify writers and laymen.
The rest is history.
Some comparisons between Schwartschild and Kerr metrics are here:
https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/AEE776964987
So, whether I believe or not in the re-normalization of these singularities, it's at the same level of re-normalization in QFT,
to get rid its infinities BY FORCE.
If I have some objections on these theories about BH or the BBT, are in the
aspects of the re-normalization of the 2nd singularity or the universal constancy
of G and c. And that's why I wrote the post about the universal validity of c, h and G.
Nothing related to Einstein himself, but to those who inherited his GR theory
for generations, right now, and started to apply it everywhere.
But it doesn't work very well today, even with the forced patch of dark matter
and dark energy, etc.
I disagree with the applicability of G and c billions of ly from here, and time ago.
Nothing else.
Richard Hertz
Aug 11, 2021, 12:31:03 AM8/11/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:27:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
<snip previous speech of hate>
> The latter. Richard Hertz is a nazi-worshipping kapo fueled by antisemitism and self-hate.
Listen, bastard. I live in a very sane society here where nothing like what you wrote is allowed or
gain the interest of citizens, except a small group of no more than 1,000 people who formed a political party.
Stop talking like that, showing your hate. Don't blame me if your society, there where you live, is full of racism,
antisemitism, minorities discrimination, inequalities and blood-suckers.
You would love to live here, in peace, even when this is a developing country. But, at least, our health system and
education at universities is FREE, while you there have to live in debt forever. So, fuck off, Dono.
And stop with the shit of religion and politics. This is not a place for your antisemitism. Or do you want me to
republish your old posts, full of speechs of hate and antisemitism against some members with arabic names?
<snip previous speech of hate>
> The latter. Richard Hertz is a nazi-worshipping kapo fueled by antisemitism and self-hate.
gain the interest of citizens, except a small group of no more than 1,000 people who formed a political party.
Stop talking like that, showing your hate. Don't blame me if your society, there where you live, is full of racism,
antisemitism, minorities discrimination, inequalities and blood-suckers.
You would love to live here, in peace, even when this is a developing country. But, at least, our health system and
education at universities is FREE, while you there have to live in debt forever. So, fuck off, Dono.
And stop with the shit of religion and politics. This is not a place for your antisemitism. Or do you want me to
republish your old posts, full of speechs of hate and antisemitism against some members with arabic names?
Richard Hertz
Aug 11, 2021, 12:32:49 AM8/11/21
to
Richard Hertz
Aug 11, 2021, 12:37:27 AM8/11/21
to
and the part where you start cloning Dono's speech of hate, with antisemitism and nazism shit. Stop it.
Dono.
Aug 11, 2021, 1:01:47 AM8/11/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:31:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:27:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip previous speech of hate>
> > The latter. Richard Hertz is a nazi-worshipping kapo fueled by antisemitism and self-hate.
> I live in lunatic asylum surrounded by my fellow neo-nazis.
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:27:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip previous speech of hate>
> > The latter. Richard Hertz is a nazi-worshipping kapo fueled by antisemitism and self-hate.
Maciej Wozniak
Aug 11, 2021, 2:29:45 AM8/11/21
to
On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 03:06:32 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
Yeah, they have a big mass!
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
Obern Blackston
Aug 11, 2021, 7:08:08 AM8/11/21
to
Obern Blackston
Aug 11, 2021, 7:11:28 AM8/11/21
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when
>> wrong! What a dogma!
>
> What would you prefer? That we shouldn't have a theory at all?
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
> If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
> certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
> wrong in this respect. But they were found.
> Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
When they faked the manned moon landing they used Newtone, not Einstine.
>> Never surrender, because Einstein is always proven right even when
>> wrong! What a dogma!
>
> What would you prefer? That we shouldn't have a theory at all?
> The theory is constantly being tested. There are certainly objects out
> that that have characteristics consistent with their being black-holes.
> If no such objects had been found, the question "why not?" would
> certainly have been asked, with the associated suggestion that GR was
> wrong in this respect. But they were found.
> Or is your objection really that it's associated with Einstein?
Live TV broadcasting from moon's surface 1969?? That broke my bulshitmeter
in a microsecond.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 11, 2021, 9:27:01 AM8/11/21
to
>
> Problem solved, troubles swept under the carpet, and let's continue.
Is the problem you imagine that until ALL the universe must be fully
explored, even outside the bounds of observability, to painstakingly check
that the speed of light is constant before it can be even provisionally
presumed to be a constant of nature? Do you also say we should check every
damn hydrogen atom in the universe to make sure the Rydberg number is a
constant, before we should presume to call it a constant? Is it a fool’s
errand to build a theory that models certain numbers as constants until you
have verified beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that it is in fact a constant?
>
> But the speed of light, c, has not been adopted as a measured standard,
> which poses many problems.
>
> About 8 years ago, a news from CERN hit the front pages: °the speed of
> light has been broken in an experiment !"
> A difference in the order of nanoseconds less than the expected delay was
> later attributed to a faulty connector, but
> even such a minuscule difference shocked scientists.
What it DID imply is that there appeared to be the possibility of a
particle moving faster than that constant, which would have posed a problem
for a presumed Lorentz symmetry in the universe but nothing whatsoever
about the value of c. It’s not like c is defined as “that speed which lies
just outside the speed of anything we have ever observed.”
>
> So, as long as the value of c is FIXED and not derived from the correct
> design of the experiments to measure it for good,
> things will remain confuse, when working on the limits of accuracy at
> physics or engineering.
>
> I stand in my position of recursion and floppiness in the adoption of an
> arbitrary value for c (within ranges of previous
> measurements).
>
>
>
>
>
>
Odd Bodkin
Aug 11, 2021, 9:27:02 AM8/11/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile
>> existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
>> earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing
>> about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
>> who was a hobbyist.
>>
>> There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the
>> speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
>> measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the
>> experiment and obtain better values.
>>
>> Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
>>
>> The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
>> Basil Mahon
>> Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
>
> And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.
Ah, you mean Newton, who — what was your term? — plagiarized his first law
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 8:54:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Maxwell himself, along with a colleague, used the biggest voltaic pile
>> existing in UK (Scotland), to measure them in
>> earlier 1870's. There was a pile with more than 2,000 elements providing
>> about 3,600, in possession of a wealthy merchant
>> who was a hobbyist.
>>
>> There, after several days, he found values that allowed to calculate the
>> speed of light close to 270000 Km/sec. More advanced
>> measuring instruments were used later, by others, to replicate the
>> experiment and obtain better values.
>>
>> Read this book, without moving your lips, retarded:
>>
>> The man who changed everything. The life of James Clerk Maxwell
>> Basil Mahon
>> Published in the UK in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate
>
> And this is really the second greatest mind in science, after Newton. A truly polymath.
of motion from Galilei, was practically sued by Hooke about the inverse
square law in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and who just happened to
stumble on the calculus at the same time as Leibniz (changing the notation
somewhat to mask the similarities)? Is this the bar that puts Newton head
and shoulders above Einstein’s use of other people’s ideas?
And Maxwell’s great contribution, for whom three of the four laws in his
famous set, are actually named for other people (Gauss, Ampere, Faraday)?
>
> The third place is for the Prince of Mathematics, Gauss.
> The fourth place goes to Euler, the father of modern mathematics.
>
> No place for Einstein among the first ten.
>
>
>
>
mitchr...@gmail.com
Aug 11, 2021, 1:54:23 PM8/11/21
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:32:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > C is a collective measurement making light speed known only as an average.
> > How do you measure G? Where has that been done?
> > Continuity is better than h... EM waves have single energies...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
Measurements can never be completely accurate.
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > C is a collective measurement making light speed known only as an average.
> > How do you measure G? Where has that been done?
> > Continuity is better than h... EM waves have single energies...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
Science measures light speed by a collective average.
How would science know how accurate their G or h is?
Richard Hertz
Aug 11, 2021, 3:32:12 PM8/11/21
to
physics, up to the tenth decimal value. And without "h", this line of physics wouldn't have existed.
So, is "h" is valid here as well as on a civilization that may exist on a planet orbiting on a star at
the M31 Andromeda galaxy (2.5 Mly far away) or at the GN-z11 galaxy (13,400 Mly far away)?
Odd Bodkin
Aug 11, 2021, 4:21:30 PM8/11/21
to
Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.
Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?
Richard Hertz
Aug 12, 2021, 2:07:59 PM8/12/21
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:21:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Two things.
>
> Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
> they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
> there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
> be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
> formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
> unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.
I note here how, very deep inside you, the phantom of Newton emerges with
his "action at a distance" or infinite speed of gravity.
Also, I'm delighted to observe how your mind rationalize things.
- There is not action of time upon matter or energy.
- Some things happens either on the Moon or on a galaxy that existed 10,000,000,000 years ago.
- The computers which extract patterns of light wavelength shifting are absolutely accurate, even
when humans who observe the pictures of collected data CAN'T see a fucking thing at the Rorschach 's
like patterns.
> Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
> units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
> arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
> systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
> And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
> whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?
Whatever takes to fix the cracks in the building of physics. Ultimate dogma.
<snip>
> Two things.
>
> Note that the spectral patterns from distant galaxies is no different than
> they are here, indicating that the laws of physics are the same here as
> there. As are the stellar compositions of those galaxies, which would not
> be the case if the constants were sufficiently different, impacting star
> formation and development. Faraway galaxies are not nearly the practically
> unknown black boxes you are trying to make them out to be.
his "action at a distance" or infinite speed of gravity.
Also, I'm delighted to observe how your mind rationalize things.
- There is not action of time upon matter or energy.
- Some things happens either on the Moon or on a galaxy that existed 10,000,000,000 years ago.
- The computers which extract patterns of light wavelength shifting are absolutely accurate, even
when humans who observe the pictures of collected data CAN'T see a fucking thing at the Rorschach 's
like patterns.
> Secondly, I’m sure you’re aware that there are perfectly good systems of
> units where space and time are measured with the same unit rather than the
> arbitrarily different ones that history saddled us with. In such natural
> systems of units, c has the value 1. Exactly 1. As does h-bar. Exactly 1.
> And so one might ask, in such natural units, would you be fussing over
> whether 1 is exactly 1 or something just close to 1?
Odd Bodkin
Aug 12, 2021, 2:16:47 PM8/12/21
to
you claim that there are huge holes in the physics story. When someone
points out what actually does lie in the gap, something you were unaware
of, you proclaim: “Somebody papered over the huge hole that I surmised was
here!”
Odd Bodkin
Aug 12, 2021, 2:28:29 PM8/12/21
to
a barely passable familiarity with physics feels confident in claiming a
long-overlooked fatal flaw.
When asked why it is this purported flaw was not discovered within a dozen
months after the theory first came out, that’s when all sorts of weird
rationalizations come out:
“Physicists are naturally stupid, individually and collectively, and it
takes the mental discipline of an engineer to ferret out flaws, which is
easy for them.”
“Physicists know about the flaw and have known about it from the very
beginning, but for some reason chose to cover it up just so that some
junior member among their ranks might become famous.”
“Physicists took twenty years to find the flaw I found in a few weeks, and
by that time they were too embarrassed, one and all, to admit that it
existed. So they had a secret meeting with tens of thousands attending a
sacred ceremony with an oath to cover it up for all time.”
“Physicists are too close to the subject and mired in the details of the
subject, and do not have the liberty of an outsider with very little
exposure to the subject to be able to step back and see the forest rather
than the trees.”
“All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”
mitchr...@gmail.com
Aug 12, 2021, 2:40:59 PM8/12/21
to
But hypocrites will be hypocrites.
Roy Masters was one. Thank God
he is not around anymore...
Richard Hertz
Aug 12, 2021, 2:45:53 PM8/12/21
to
> I honestly do not understand why someone (again, usually an engineer) with
> a barely passable familiarity with physics feels confident in claiming a
> long-overlooked fatal flaw.
Of course you don't. You have not a practical, rational and analytic mind as an engineer has.
> a barely passable familiarity with physics feels confident in claiming a
> long-overlooked fatal flaw.
The "highly radioactive dogmas" of the new physics have poisoned your body, mind and soul.
You lack the capability to use a different "thinking hat" to analyze things, detached from previous positions.
If you were a judge of law, I'm sure that the list of "convicted to death penalty" by you would be colossal.
> When asked why it is this purported flaw was not discovered within a dozen
> months after the theory first came out, that’s when all sorts of weird
> rationalizations come out:
>
> “Physicists are naturally stupid, individually and collectively, and it
> takes the mental discipline of an engineer to ferret out flaws, which is
> easy for them.”
>
> “Physicists know about the flaw and have known about it from the very
> beginning, but for some reason chose to cover it up just so that some
> junior member among their ranks might become famous.”
>
> “Physicists took twenty years to find the flaw I found in a few weeks, and
> by that time they were too embarrassed, one and all, to admit that it
> existed. So they had a secret meeting with tens of thousands attending a
> sacred ceremony with an oath to cover it up for all time.”
>
> “Physicists are too close to the subject and mired in the details of the
> subject, and do not have the liberty of an outsider with very little
> exposure to the subject to be able to step back and see the forest rather
> than the trees.”
>
> “All these things that are built based on relativistic design principles
> just work by accident, as all things properly engineered do.”
Keep going on your findings.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 12, 2021, 3:03:54 PM8/12/21
to
Well, I’m not sure whether to take this as an even feebler attempt to bait
than ever before, or a confession of your mental collapse. And it may be
worth noting that with you, it’s difficult to judge.
>
> Keep going on your findings.
>
Michael Moroney
Aug 12, 2021, 3:12:30 PM8/12/21
to
And you claim to be an engineer??? Or is your mind rotting, like Ken
Seto's mind. He was once an engineer with a couple of patents, but look
at him now.
And why such a hard-on for Einstein?
Odd Bodkin
Aug 12, 2021, 3:43:42 PM8/12/21
to
stupid statements said with all earnestness.
With Hertz, you’re going to see a mixture of phenomenally stupid statements
said with earnestness and phenomenally stupid statements said in jest.
Hard to say which is more pitiable.
Richard Hertz
Aug 12, 2021, 4:15:46 PM8/12/21
to
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:43:42 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
To Bodkin and Moroney:
I sense.... butthurt. Are your synchronized?
Because it happens with other physiological manifestations in humans.
To Bodkin and Moroney:
I sense.... butthurt. Are your synchronized?
Because it happens with other physiological manifestations in humans.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 12, 2021, 4:36:17 PM8/12/21
to
little tired, though. Thanks for your expression of misplaced empathy.
Meanwhile, you have a little foam on your chin, next to your mouth….. No,
on the other side … Lower…. There, you got it.
Richard Hertz
Aug 12, 2021, 11:35:06 PM8/12/21
to
Why don't you create an absolute scale of discomfort and shove it into everyone's ass,
as others did with the fixation of "c"?
After all, standards are there to be fixed at convenience by law and supported by collusion.
You can be rich by selling "Discomfort Measurement App" to every sucker in the world, so they
can compare their feelings based on a single standard. Grade it to zero to ten, with one decimal or two.
You decide, as your belong to the "snowflake" generation, isn't it?
Odd Bodkin
Aug 13, 2021, 5:48:21 AM8/13/21
to
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
0 new messages