What did Einstein accomplish that serves to mankind? Compare with Newton or Maxwell.

[Richard Hertz]

Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
metaphysics with no practical application.

Newton rules, undisputed.
Maxwell rules, undisputed.
Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.

Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
and zero legacy.

Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
more to physics (and chemistry).

[Paul Alsing]

Your hatred of Einstein has permanently scarred your brain, rendering it essentially useless. Better find something else to do with your time, it is completely wasted here.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”
-Proverbs

[JanPB]

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> metaphysics with no practical application.

Mentally deranged gobbledygook. Monomania. Obsession.

> Newton rules, undisputed.

Blah.

> Maxwell rules, undisputed.

Actually, it was all Maxwell's fault because it's his equations that led
to special relativity.

> Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.

Yes, they are undisputed but you are not qualified even to praise them.

> Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> and zero legacy.

Obsession and monomania.

> Even the pair Schrodinger

Schroedinger.

> -Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> more to physics (and chemistry).

Again, you can talk all you want about physics. It means nothing.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:44:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> > thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> > metaphysics with no practical application.
> >
> > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> > Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.
> >
> > Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> > and zero legacy.
> >
> > Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> > more to physics (and chemistry).
> Your hatred of Einstein has permanently scarred your brain, rendering it essentially useless.

Yes, it's an obvious Einstein Derangement Syndrome. Strangely enough,
high IQ offers no protection against this sort of mental pathogen.

> Better find something else to do with your time, it is completely wasted here.

A monomaniac cannot quit so easily.

--
Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-12-09 02:47:14 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> [more Einstein hatred]

What has Richard Hertz accomplished? Nothing.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[J. J. Lodder]

JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:44:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> > > thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> > > metaphysics with no practical application.
> > >
> > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> > > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside,
> > > Rutherford, Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many
> > > others: undisputed.
> > >
> > > Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible
> > > people and zero legacy.
> > >
> > > Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> > > more to physics (and chemistry).
> > Your hatred of Einstein has permanently scarred your brain, rendering it
> > essentially useless.
> >
> Yes, it's an obvious Einstein Derangement Syndrome. Strangely enough,
> high IQ offers no protection against this sort of mental pathogen.

Au contraire, it makes some people more vulnerable.
They think that they can think.

May I recommend this product for your consideration?
<https://shop17203.sfstatic.io/upload_dir/shop/product-images/rr42.jpg>

OTOH, it might induce you to follow Piet Hein's example,
and to walk out on him, which would be a loss to this forum,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> metaphysics with no practical application.
>

> Maxwell rules, undisputed.

Einstein told us what Maxwell's equations really mean,
something that Maxwell himself never knew,

JAn

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 8:28:09 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Einstein told us what Maxwell's equations really mean,
> something that Maxwell himself never knew,
>
> JAn

I feel pity for you, as I read your comment that downplay and insult a TRUE POLYMATH GENIUS like Maxwell.

If you dare to repeat that on an IEEE meeting (or in any EE association), they would put your severed head on a stick, in a public place.

More than 140 years have passed since Maxwell's equations, reduced by Heaviside and Hertz, RULES THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WORLD.

As of today, the same 1880 four Maxwell's equation keep being used UNMODIFIED, to solve ANY problem in RF Engineering, from dipoles,
monopoles, array of dipoles, fractal antennae, dish antennae and ANY OTHER TYPE of antennae. They are even used with atomic and
molecular dipoles, from 10 Khz to 200 Ghz and WITHOUT A GLITCH.

And you DARE to compare such incredible contribution to modern civilization to what A PLAGIARIST CHARLATAN TOLD YOU?

You're an imbecile beyond any possible redemption.

Relativity is A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. JUST META-PHYSICS. Astrology has had more impact in the history of mankind than SR/GR.

[Dono.]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:07:34 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I am an imbecile beyond any possible redemption.
>
Agreed

[JanPB]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:07:34 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 8:28:09 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Einstein told us what Maxwell's equations really mean,
> > something that Maxwell himself never knew,
> >
> > JAn
> I feel pity for you, as I read your comment that downplay and insult a TRUE POLYMATH GENIUS like Maxwell.
>
> If you dare to repeat that on an IEEE meeting (or in any EE association), they would put your severed head on a stick, in a public place.
>
> More than 140 years have passed since Maxwell's equations, reduced by Heaviside and Hertz, RULES THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WORLD.

Well, in the classical regime, yes. But in particle physics, no.
Same is true about general relativity, BTW which can be considered
a tensor version of classical electrodynamics except it features an
additional curious bit: the equivalence principle.

> As of today, the same 1880 four Maxwell's equation keep being used UNMODIFIED, to solve ANY problem in RF Engineering, from dipoles,
> monopoles, array of dipoles, fractal antennae, dish antennae and ANY OTHER TYPE of antennae. They are even used with atomic and
> molecular dipoles, from 10 Khz to 200 Ghz and WITHOUT A GLITCH.

They don't work in general, they lead e.g. to the ultraviolet catastrophe
(which was a major conundrum of electrodynamics). So that's a major
glitch in the theory. But just like Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's electrodynamics
will never go away, and the same is true of Einstein's relativity. All those theories
are phenomenally successful within their domains of application but none
is complete in the sense that none encompasses all phenomena of nature.

> And you DARE to compare such incredible contribution to modern civilization to what A PLAGIARIST CHARLATAN TOLD YOU?

Einstein was not any "charlatan" or "plagiarist", you're just a monomaniac
throwing tantrum.

> You're an imbecile beyond any possible redemption.
>
> Relativity is A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. JUST META-PHYSICS. Astrology has had more impact in the history of mankind than SR/GR.

Relativity is a theory fully on par with Newton's and Maxwell's theories. As such,
it will never go away. I can see that this annoys you but this is a problem
you have to deal with yourself, perhaps with a bit of psychological help.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/8/22 8:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Newton rules, undisputed.

Nope. Newtonian mechanics does not explain the kinematics observed in
particle accelerators, or fine details observed in certain astronomical
observations.

> Maxwell rules, undisputed.

Nope. Maxwell's equations (really classical electrodynamics) do not
explain lasers and myriad quantum phenomena.

> Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside,
> Rutherford, Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many
> others: undisputed.

Nope. See above.

Tom Roberts

[Hanoi Cuocco]

JanPB wrote:

>> And you DARE to compare such incredible contribution to modern
>> civilization to what A PLAGIARIST CHARLATAN TOLD YOU?
>
> Einstein was not any "charlatan" or "plagiarist", you're just a
> monomaniac throwing tantrum.

sure, he was an actor comedian "president" of uKraine, coup detated 2014 by a strong open nazis regime, well known by the capitalist khazar west. Same thing, different domains.

Famous Prisoner Of Conscience Victor Bout Exchanged To Lesbian Basketball Player Griner
https://southfront.org/famous-prisoner-of-conscience-victor-bout-exchanged-to-lesbian-basketball-player-griner/

then the khazar america says gay Griner is america. Proofs:

Karine Jean-Pierre on Brittney Griner’s release: "She represents the best of America."
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/aEgwngfnUa2V/

then the polakers are changing their names and move to america. Which is gay.

[patdolan]

And here is a problem from your past that you need to deal with Jan:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate

You and euroHenry were its first victims. You cut and run back then. Figured a way out yet?

[whodat]

Oops, your obsession with gay is showing.

[The Starmaker]

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:44:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> > > thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> > > metaphysics with no practical application.
> > >
> > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> > > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> > > Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.
> > >
> > > Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> > > and zero legacy.
> > >
> > > Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> > > more to physics (and chemistry).
> > Your hatred of Einstein has permanently scarred your brain, rendering it essentially useless.
>
> Yes, it's an obvious Einstein Derangement Syndrome. Strangely enough,
> high IQ offers no protection against this sort of mental pathogen.

What you failed to understand JanPB is that high IQ is a result from an evolutionary disease.

And you're tooooo close to see the forest..to see you are also...sick in the head.

Albert Einstein was also...sick in the head, right? spectrum disorder.


Out of 7 billion people on earth only 7 million are scientist, or having high IQ as a result from an evolutionary disease disorder.


Nature makes mistakes too.



What are we gonna do with all these...retards?


I say, Save The World, exterminate them all.








--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[J. J. Lodder]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 8:28:09 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Einstein told us what Maxwell's equations really mean,
> > something that Maxwell himself never knew,
> >

> > Jan

>
> I feel pity for you, as I read your comment that downplay and insult a
> TRUE POLYMATH GENIUS like Maxwell.

Your pity doesn't change anything.

> If you dare to repeat that on an IEEE meeting (or in any EE association),
> they would put your severed head on a stick, in a public place.

Now there you have an irrefutable argument.
But tell me, are those EE guys really to dumb
to put up a stake the way it should be done?

Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

Really, Tom? For an OLD physicist with a PhD, you show a very disrespectful attitude toward GREAT figures
of physics and mathematics that BROUGHT LIGHT to the darkness of human knowledge and allowed, in the
last 250 years TO CREATE the modern world and made possible that hundred of developers invented ALL of
the marvels that you enjoy daily TODAY. Relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING TO THE 2022 WORLD.

You write as a resented relativist, that can't find ANY VALUE in what you worked all of your professional life. Shame on you.

> On 12/8/22 8:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Newton rules, undisputed.
>
> Nope. Newtonian mechanics does not explain the kinematics observed in
> particle accelerators, or fine details observed in certain astronomical observations.

Newtonian mechanics, developed during 200 years (until 1900) don't care and don't give a shit
for little charged particles that move at 36,000 Km/hr or higher, in a machine POWERED by energy
derived from DISCOVERIES in electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism from 1830 to 1930
(include thermionic amplifiers and nascent electronics, please).

Again, relativity contributed TO NOTHING OF VALUE TO THE REAL WORLD, and enjoyed more than 100 years to do something.

>
> > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
>
> Nope. Maxwell's equations (really classical electrodynamics) do not
> explain lasers and myriad quantum phenomena.

Maxwell, single-handedly, brought together electricity and magnetism creating the wireline and wireless electromagnetic world.
His discovery was SO ADVANCED that, even with Hertz contribution 10 years after his death, the world had to wait between 20
and 40 years (and Tesla, Edison, de Forest and many others) to start enjoying the services of a public energy grid, power generation,
electric motors, radio links for data and then voice, long distance telephony, radio broadcasting, incipient TV broadcasting, radars, etc.).

Again, in the period described (1885 - 1930), relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING. Only created chaos and confusion on weak minds.

> > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside,
> > Rutherford, Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many
> > others: undisputed.
> Nope. See above.
>
> Tom Roberts

Your disgraceful remark paints you as what you really are: a RESENTED RELATIVIST, looking for something to bitch around,
in CONSOLATION, because DEEP INSIDE you know how sterile and worthless relativity is.

And about quantum physics, lasers and shit, it emerged AFTER a period of maturation of THE WINDOW TO KNOWLEDGE that
Thomson, Planck, Rutherford and Bohr opened in just 15 years to allow a new generation of physicist to develop quantum mechanics
LESS THAN A DECADE after Bohr.

I don't see ANY CONTRIBUTION OF RELATIVITY HERE. Ohm did more for science advancement that your imbecile deity.

So, keep licking your wounds, Roberts. And keep telling a distorted, worthless vision of a technological world with your MUONS and
other accelerated shit, that ARE UNRELATED TO THE REALITY PERCEIVED BY 99.99999% OF PEOPLE.

[Alan B]

Bump

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 5:37:52 PM UTC-3, Alan B wrote:
> Bump

Undue self entitled cretins disappear for a while from here, when their cockiness is beaten badly by FACTS.

Then, when things seem to settle down, come again with four-vectors, Lorentz invariance, neutrino's flavors or similar
unable to be proven shit. Even, they may get a try to quantum gravity, cosmological red-shift, sex of the angels or another
groovy topic. Medical sciences have no cure for this pathology.

Eventually, they can claim that about another 10,000 imbeciles think alike, because they have studied and WERE FORCED
to repeat like parrots what they were FORCED to swallow, without any chance to complain. Obey or you are out of "the club".

[Alan B]

Time for Michelson-Morley to be revisited while in low Earth orbit and/or interplanetary space/Solar orbit, yes?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Orbits appear sped up to an outside fast clock. But their ellipspes don't change....

[Dono.]

No. You are still a crank.

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:01:13 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 1:47:59 PM UTC-8, Alan B wrote:

<snip>

> > Time for Michelson-Morley to be revisited while in low Earth orbit and/or interplanetary space/Solar orbit, yes?
> No. You are still a crank.

Beware of Dono. He's the janitor at the Bureau of Budget Distribution to Keep Proving Einstein's Right.

99% of the money goes to MSM, as bribes.

He has a word when bureaucrats go to the bathroom to take a dump. He always caught them with their pants down.

Furthermore, he likes that, as has lived all his life surrounded by shit. Says it's tasty.

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 3:10:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:01:13 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 1:47:59 PM UTC-8, Alan B wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Time for Michelson-Morley to be revisited while in low Earth orbit and/or interplanetary space/Solar orbit, yes?
> > No. You are still a crank.

> Beware of Dono. He always has the word when cranks like me go to the bathroom to eat shit. He always catches me with my pants down and kicks my ass.
Yup

[JanPB]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 12:28:08 PM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:44:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> > > > thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> > > > metaphysics with no practical application.
> > > >
> > > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > > > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> > > > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside,
> > > > Rutherford, Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many
> > > > others: undisputed.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible
> > > > people and zero legacy.
> > > >
> > > > Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> > > > more to physics (and chemistry).
> > > Your hatred of Einstein has permanently scarred your brain, rendering it
> > > essentially useless.
> > >
> > Yes, it's an obvious Einstein Derangement Syndrome. Strangely enough,
> > high IQ offers no protection against this sort of mental pathogen.
> Au contraire, it makes some people more vulnerable.
> They think that they can think.

Yes, this became VERY obvious during the pandemic and also during Trump's
presidency. A FAPP mass hysteria on both coasts of the US which is where
the US intelligentsia resides. Future sociologists will have a field day studying
this phenomenon. I haven't seen such a thing even in the communist Poland.

Something similar happened in the late 19th century Russia and it also affected
mostly the ellites. Dostoyevsky wrote an entire novel about it and put the mental
"viral infection" in the novel's title ("Demons") and in its motto. All this ended up
rather unpleasantly in the year 1917.

> May I recommend this product for your consideration?
> <https://shop17203.sfstatic.io/upload_dir/shop/product-images/rr42.jpg>

Hein was awesome.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:47:58 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Really, Tom? For an OLD physicist with a PhD, you show a very disrespectful attitude toward GREAT figures
> of physics and mathematics that BROUGHT LIGHT to the darkness of human knowledge and allowed, in the
> last 250 years TO CREATE the modern world and made possible that hundred of developers invented ALL of
> the marvels that you enjoy daily TODAY. Relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING TO THE 2022 WORLD.
>
> You write as a resented relativist, that can't find ANY VALUE in what you worked all of your professional life. Shame on you.
> > On 12/8/22 8:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> >
> > Nope. Newtonian mechanics does not explain the kinematics observed in
> > particle accelerators, or fine details observed in certain astronomical observations.
> Newtonian mechanics, developed during 200 years (until 1900) don't care and don't give a shit
> for little charged particles that move at 36,000 Km/hr or higher, in a machine POWERED by energy
> derived from DISCOVERIES in electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism from 1830 to 1930
> (include thermionic amplifiers and nascent electronics, please).

So you are finally admitting that experimental results mean nothing to you.

> Again, relativity contributed TO NOTHING OF VALUE TO THE REAL WORLD,

Of course it did, it models correctly the behaviour of elementary particles AND it
also explains the electric bills amounts for those accelerators.

If you think you know something that the big business and bank consortia that sponsor
those accelerators do not know, then by all means let them know. They'll be very happy to
do something to lower the electric bills.

> and enjoyed more than 100 years to do something.

No, it's just that you happen to understand (somewhat) this part of physics but you
cannot understand the later developments (forced on us by experimental results which
cannot be ignored, obviously, in the real world). So you feel like the new developments have
severed your contact with science and you resent that.

But you chose the wrong method to deal with this: instead of rolling up your sleeves and
doing the honest learning work, you simply decided to double down and defend plain nonsense
come hell or high water. IOW, you decided to retreat to a little private fantasyland.

This approach leads nowhere. It's a dead end for you.

> > > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> >
> > Nope. Maxwell's equations (really classical electrodynamics) do not
> > explain lasers and myriad quantum phenomena.
> Maxwell, single-handedly, brought together electricity and magnetism creating the wireline and wireless electromagnetic world.

Yes, but his equations cannot predict why the black body radiates the way it does:
Maxwell's equations predict, instead, that every object in the universe spontaneously
radiates infinite amounts of energy. They also predict that in some cases particles
start to spontaneously arbitrarily accelerate. The former is known as "the ultraviolet
catastrophe", the latter as "the runaway solutions".

The biggest problem with Maxwell's equations was that they are not observer-independent,
unlike Newtonian mechanics. This was huge because at the time all mechanical
interactions were considered to be macroscopic results of electromagnetic
interactions. This problem was not satisfactorily solved until Einstein's 1905 paper.

> His discovery was SO ADVANCED that, even with Hertz contribution 10 years after his death, the world had to wait between 20
> and 40 years (and Tesla, Edison, de Forest and many others) to start enjoying the services of a public energy grid, power generation,
> electric motors, radio links for data and then voice, long distance telephony, radio broadcasting, incipient TV broadcasting, radars, etc.).

Yeah, nice but irrelevant.

> Again, in the period described (1885 - 1930), relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING.

It contributed a model for elementary particles interactions. That's a huge deal.
You probably don't even know how Maxwell's equations are an expression of
local gauge invariance.

> Only created chaos and confusion on weak minds.

No, in your mind. Excpet that normal people with no nack for physics simply
stay away and engage in something they know they are good at instead.
But monomaniacs just persist in doing something they cannot do. And of course
they blame everyone on the planet for their plight, including inventing the most
dinosaurian conspiracy theories to explain their total failure. The classic
well-known case of this is graphomania.

> > > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside,
> > > Rutherford, Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many
> > > others: undisputed.
> > Nope. See above.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Your disgraceful remark paints you as what you really are: a RESENTED RELATIVIST, looking for something to bitch around,
> in CONSOLATION, because DEEP INSIDE you know how sterile and worthless relativity is.

Relativity is an excellent physics theory. And there is nothing you can do about it.
The theory will never go away, just like Newton's or Maxwell's theories will never
go away.

> And about quantum physics, lasers and shit,

Ah, an expletive because here again is an instance of something you know
nothing about, so you must (obviously) yell at it, like a child.

> it emerged AFTER a period of maturation of THE WINDOW TO KNOWLEDGE that
> Thomson, Planck, Rutherford and Bohr opened in just 15 years to allow a new generation of physicist to develop quantum mechanics
> LESS THAN A DECADE after Bohr.
>
> I don't see ANY CONTRIBUTION OF RELATIVITY HERE.

Because you don't know anything about quantum theory. What you said above
is exactly like saying "I don't see any contribution of Banach spaces to mathematics".

> Ohm did more for science advancement that your imbecile deity.

No, false. Also, note that you literally cannot stop from using invective whenever
relativity or the person of Albert Einstein comes up. You are truly emotionally
disturbed. It's hard to tell if your physics-monomania is the cause or the effect
but it's very obvious in your posts.

I would see a doctor, it may be a result of something physical.

> So, keep licking your wounds, Roberts.

Stop imagining things about your opponents. It's childish. Nobody is
licking any "wounds", especially because of your idiotic posts.

> And keep telling a distorted, worthless vision of a technological world with your MUONS and
> other accelerated shit, that ARE UNRELATED TO THE REALITY PERCEIVED BY 99.99999% OF PEOPLE.

No, this is an experimental observation. You can reject it until cows come home.

Nothing and nobody will ever yield to your frustrated wishes. The only way for you
to proceed is to learn physics (if you want to get anywhere with it). That's how everyone
who understands it did it: by working honestly on it full-time for yeras/deacdes.

There is no other way. Your wishes and your ignoring observed results mean nothing.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:38:37 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 5:37:52 PM UTC-3, Alan B wrote:
> > Bump
>
> Undue self entitled cretins disappear for a while from here, when their cockiness is beaten badly by FACTS.

You provided none. You only post your little private fantasies generated
by your frustrated wishes.

> Then, when things seem to settle down, come again with four-vectors, Lorentz invariance, neutrino's flavors or similar
> unable to be proven shit.

Not even wrong. Again just rejecting facts you find inconvenient because they
(apparently) exceed your capacity for understanding physics.

Just find yourself a different hobby. Must it be physics?

I cannot play piano well and I do not insist that I'm a concert pianist.
Why is it so difficult for you, presumably an adult(?), to admit that
physics is simply not something you can do?

> Even, they may get a try to quantum gravity, cosmological red-shift, sex of the angels or another
> groovy topic. Medical sciences have no cure for this pathology.

Gobbledygook. You are venting infantile frustrations, again.

> Eventually, they can claim that about another 10,000 imbeciles think alike, because they have studied and WERE FORCED
> to repeat like parrots what they were FORCED to swallow, without any chance to complain. Obey or you are out of "the club".

You are "out of the club" because you refuse to learn physics. You prefer, instead,
to fantasise that you are a misunderstood genius. This is the root cause of your
problem: you want to get something tangible without doing the work necessary to
acquire it. It will never work, you and your gobbledygook will be forever laughed at.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 10:29:30 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:47:58 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Really, Tom? For an OLD physicist with a PhD, you show a very disrespectful attitude toward GREAT figures
> > of physics and mathematics that BROUGHT LIGHT to the darkness of human knowledge and allowed, in the
> > last 250 years TO CREATE the modern world and made possible that hundred of developers invented ALL of
> > the marvels that you enjoy daily TODAY. Relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING TO THE 2022 WORLD.
> >
> > You write as a resented relativist, that can't find ANY VALUE in what you worked all of your professional life. Shame on you.
> > > On 12/8/22 8:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > >
> > > Nope. Newtonian mechanics does not explain the kinematics observed in
> > > particle accelerators, or fine details observed in certain astronomical observations.
> > Newtonian mechanics, developed during 200 years (until 1900) don't care and don't give a shit
> > for little charged particles that move at 36,000 Km/hr or higher, in a machine POWERED by energy
> > derived from DISCOVERIES in electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism from 1830 to 1930
> > (include thermionic amplifiers and nascent electronics, please).
> So you are finally admitting that experimental results mean nothing to you.
> > Again, relativity contributed TO NOTHING OF VALUE TO THE REAL WORLD,
> Of course it did, it models correctly the behaviour of elementary particles AND

and in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

> Relativity is an excellent physics theory. And there is nothing you can do about it.
> The theory will never go away, just like Newton's or Maxwell's theories will never
> go away.

Or phlogiston's.

> Nothing and nobody will ever yield to your frustrated wishes. The only way for you
> to proceed is to learn physics

How dare you criticizing communism!!! have you studied
the works of comerade Lenin?

[Richard Hachel]

Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> t'=t

Are you sure?

J'aurais passé 40 ans de ma vie à raconter des conneries alors?

Dans quel but?

Pour les crachats?

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 14:16:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> > t'=t
>
> Are you sure?

Well, yes. Time is what clocks indicate.
Clocks indicate what we set them to.
And - as when setting the clocks we ignore
insane prophets screaming what we're
allegedly FORCED to - your precious
experiments don't affect it at all.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 21/02/2023 à 14:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 14:16:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> > t'=t
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Well, yes. Time is what clocks indicate.

Yes.

The problem is that the watches do not indicate the same time.

Alors on fait quoi? ? ?

R.H.

[Maciej Wozniak]

They indicate what they're set to. By us. Not
by you.

[Robert Winn]

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 7:47:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> metaphysics with no practical application.
>
> Newton rules, undisputed.
> Maxwell rules, undisputed.

> Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.
>

> Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> and zero legacy.
>
> Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> more to physics (and chemistry).

Einstein made me think. It started when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special theory of relativity to us. He told us that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So I imagined a clock in a flying airplane for the moving clock and a clock on the ground for the clock that was not moving. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he was using showed that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. When the internet was invented, I started asking scientists in sci.physics.relativity about this. They responded with insults and profanity. So I said, I need to prove this with equations. So I started with two little equations Einstein said he extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. After about twenty years of one sided discussion, I was able to see that Einstein had actually extracted the equations from the Galilean transformation equations.
x=ct, x'=ct'
x'=x-vt
ct'=ct-vt
t'=t-vt/c = t-vct/c^2 = t-vx/c^2, which is the numerator of the Lorentz equation for t', which Lorentz had obviously obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Where he got the denominator for his equation is unclear, but the obvious error can be seen in the numerator. The equation t'=t-vx/c^2 is only true for one value of x, that is, if x is the distance light travels in time t, which is the time it takes for frame of reference S' to move a distance of vt relative to frame of reference S. For any other values of x, the equation is untrue because, supposing that t is one second, and x is one mile, then the time it takes light to travel one mile would be 1/186,000 sec, and the time it would take light to travel a distance of x' would be 1/186,000 sec minus v(1 sec)/186,000 mi/sec. The x that Einstein and Lorentz insert into the equation is not the same x unless x is the distance light travels in time t.
But there is also a t' that relates to the equation. It is found in the inverse equation.
x=x'-v't'
This shows that the pilot of the airplane gets a different speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground because his clock has a different rate. These equations work whether the clock is slower, as Einstein postulated with Special Relativity, or the clock is faster, as scientists tell us is true with a GPS satellite.
How do we determine what the clocks will read?
It has to do with the energy of the system, which is shown by distances and times. I do not personally see any need for Special Relativity, which Einstein defined as relativity in the absence of gravitation. If you have gravitation, you should be able to predict the times and velocities as they pertain to frames of reference. If we take the solar system as our model of what happens, the fastest moving planet is Mercury because it is closest to the sun and most affected by gravitation. Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second as measured by a clock on earth. As measured by a clock on Mercury, it would be going faster. Earth is moving at 20 miles per second. As measured by a clock on Mars, earth would be going slower because a clock on Mars would be faster than a clock on earth. Scientists can get their interpretation of relativity to work because if experiment does not agree with their equations, they can come up with a reason to adjust the result according to their interpretation of how the results are affected by Special Relativity as compared to General Relativity. I think that if they were using the correct equations, they would not need to adjust anything because the energy of the system explains why a clock on Mercury is slower than a clock on earth and a clock on Mars is faster than a clock on earth. But I am not going to take it any further than this. If scientists are not interested in the correct equations for relativity, let them blow themselves up using the wrong equations.

[Richard Hertz]

Excellent post. Congratulations.

Only one comment: Lorentz borrowed his "local time" and his "gamma factor" from Woldemar Voigt, who FOUND THEM by developing
a linear transformation between (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') domains:

x' = ax+by+cz+dt (and so on with y', z' and t').

He had four algebraic expressions with 16 unknown parameters. Then he IMPOSED that the general wave equation should be
INVARIANT expressed in (x',y',z',t') domain. After a lot of work and some assumptions, he obtained the first ever set of TRANSFORMS
between both domains. Local time emerged naturally, as well as the gamma factor.

Voigt, the FATHER of relativity, was not an imbecile cretin like Lorentz and Einstein.

In his set of transforms, TIME WAS NOT AFFECTED BY GAMMA FACTOR, nor the preferred axis of motion x.

The only influence of motion on time was his LOCAL TIME, which is what you derived from galilean transforms.

And Voigt, a distinguished German physicist, did all of this by 1887, 17 years BEFORE Lorentz.

In 1911, the cretin Lorentz met Voigt at the Solvay Conference and, after Voigt request for acknowledgement on priority, Lorentz
barely apologized ONLY for "local time". By then, Lorentz was the chaperon of Einstein and brought him to the conference.

By that epoch, Lorentz was regaining fame due to the buzz-word "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and he enjoyed many years after his
intellectual sponsor of THAT RELATIVITY in continental Europe, USA and Japan. He fulfilled his role of spineless PR person for
Einstein (mainly connecting with Eddington and establishment) until 1921, when he was a drooling senile IMBECILE.

Another sold out cretin, submitting to the force of zionist science, politics and economy.

Finally, I remark this: YOU ARE RIGHT, and all members of the relativistic herd (with such mentality) ARE FUCKING WRONG, but don't care.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:37:53 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:

<a repeat of former imbecilities>.
> Excellent post. Congratulations.
Cranks unite!

[Robert Winn]

Dono

You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.

[Dono.]

Don't need to, you provided all the ammo thru the imbecilities that you posted yourself. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

[Robert Winn]

Well, here is what I have always said. If the oscillations of a cesium isotope atom are used to measure the speed of light, and the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions, then Newton or Galileo knew enough about mathematics to convert the different rates of time to use in their equations, which scientists of today seem incapable of doing. What scientists of today do is say that lengths contract, space curves, and all manner of other things happen to conform to their incorrect equations. So what they end up with is a distorted mirror image of reality which they say must be imposed on all things because they regard themselves as the most intelligent beings in existence. Going back to the example of the solar system, Newton used the idea of absolute time in his equations, which said that all clocks in the universe that were operating correctly would agree with one another. But the rate of time for a system has to be based on more than just how fast a planet is rotating, which was the first standard for measuring time. If a cesium atom in a GPS satellite is oscillating faster than a cesium atom on earth because of less gravitation, which is what scientists tell us, then all you have to do to use Newton's equations is convert one rate of time to the other before using his equations. But why would the rate of oscillations of a cesium atom on earth be the standard if the rate of oscillations on Mercury would be slower, or the rate on Mars would be faster?
It seems to me there would be a rate of time common to all planets to which the rate of oscillations of a cesium atom could be related in terms of gravitation, but it would not be the rate of oscillations of a cesium atom on earth just because that was where Einstein was.

[Robert Winn]

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-21 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 21/02/2023 ŕ 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
>> t'=t
>
> Are you sure?
>

> J'aurais passé 40 ans de ma vie ŕ raconter des conneries alors?

Oů ? Dans quelle capacité ?

>
> Dans quel but?
>
> Pour les crachats?
>
> R.H.
>

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[Vicente Acquati]

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Time for Michelson-Morley to be revisited while in low Earth orbit
>> and/or interplanetary space/Solar orbit, yes?
>
> Orbits appear sped up to an outside fast clock. But their ellipspes
> don't change...

you don't undrestand _dark matter_.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:37:53 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Voigt, the FATHER of relativity,

Voight was not a father of relativity. You make the standard ignoramus mistake
confusing an equation (or equations) with a theory.

> was not an imbecile cretin like Lorentz and Einstein.

You ought to see a doctor.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,

They aren't . Stick to welding.

[JanPB]

Isn't Robert Winn the guy who joined this group many years ago by posting
that Lorentz contraction was nonsense because he had measured metal rods on
a moving truck and they were not any shorter?

--
Jan

[Dono.]

yup

[Richard Hertz]

Minkowski said so!. Are you, intellectual insect, trying to contradict the assertion of the creator of spacetime, cones of light
and SR under formal tensor notation?

Who the fuck do you believe you are, microbe?

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:33:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:

<snip>

> > > You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.
> > Don't need to, you provided all the ammo thru the imbecilities that you posted yourself. Keep it up, dumbfuck!
> Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

You have to understand Dono. He's a self-hating jew because he failed to be like Einstein's good son, an engineer.

He turned out to be like the other Einstein's son, Eduard, a schizo like his father.

[Richard Hertz]

Yet NOBODY was able to post ANY REAL CONTRIBUTION from Einstein to posterity.

And 117 years passed since the imbecile "wrote" those stupid papers, most of them originated in theft, plagiarism, cynicism,
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and pseudo-philosophy, in the greatest cover up of the zionist movement to promote the Marx
or Freud of physics.

Even his Nobel, due to what his wife stole from Lenard, was a comedy act to award the imbecile with something.

It didn't matter that THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT had been discovered by many (like Hertz and his pupil Lenard in 1889)
and industrialized since 1890.

It didn't matter that Einstein didn't have a clue about what an atom was until Rutherford-Bohr.

It didn't matter that Einstein was appallingly ignorant of radio waves, spark generators and antennae, and that dreamt about
"light generators" BY 1911, being very high and sending light beams down to Earth with gh/c² red-shifting. Also proposing
variable speed of light and messing up things with the wave-particle lame description of light IN THE SAME YEAR!.

What is worth mentioning is that he CREATED 100,000+ jobs for parasites posing as scientists in a lapse of 100 years.
Einstein's Corp. is A VERY LUCRATIVE INDUSTRY OF DECEPTION, with zero production and zero accountability.

How not to love Einstein? It's like to love to a founder of a new church, which will make priests rich and protected, and gullible
people stupidly happy for having in what to believe, after the due 10% contribution to the big guy. Also, zero production and
accountability.

But the question remains: In which technology, product or service you can find the label "EINSTEIN INSIDE"?. NONE.

[Robert Winn]

They aren't? So why are scientists saying that a clock in a GPS satellite is slower than a clock on earth and has to be adjusted to be the same?

[Robert Winn]

No, I asked if a steel beam on a moving truck would be shorter than a steel beam on a truck that was not moving. According to scientists, the Lorentz equations show that it would be by some amount. I have since completed the mathematics. Both beams would be the same length, regardless of how fast the moving beam was moving. There is no length contraction. Here are the correct equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:32:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:33:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.
> > > Don't need to, you provided all the ammo thru the imbecilities that you posted yourself. Keep it up, dumbfuck!
> > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

> You have to understand me. I am a self-hating jew and a kapo

[Volney]

On 2/21/2023 10:37 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:

[snip]

> Excellent post. Congratulations.

It's a kꙫꙫk lovefest! Is this where baby kooks come from?

> He [Voigt] had four algebraic expressions with 16 unknown parameters. Then he IMPOSED that the general wave equation should be

> INVARIANT expressed in (x',y',z',t') domain. After a lot of work and some assumptions, he obtained the first ever set of TRANSFORMS
> between both domains. Local time emerged naturally, as well as the gamma factor.

So close but not quite. His equations are all off by a factor of 1/γ!
Because of this, his equation is not symmetrical, that is if you derive
the primed variables from the unprimed, and then derive the unprimed
variables from the primed, you should get the original values back. But
you don't, the derived unprimed variables differ from the primed
variables by a factor of 1/γ². Too bad. To be fair, everyone at the time
believed in the aether, so maybe that was expected with aether theories.
>
> Voigt, the FATHER of relativity, was not an imbecile cretin like Richard Hertz.

Very true.

>
> In his set of transforms, TIME WAS NOT AFFECTED BY GAMMA FACTOR, nor the preferred axis of motion x.

Unfortunately, the y and z values were , when they shouldn't be.

>
> The only influence of motion on time was his LOCAL TIME, which is what you derived from galilean transforms.

Maybe this was his mistake. Using one transform to partially create his
new one.

> In 1911, the cretin Lorentz met Voigt at the Solvay Conference and, after Voigt request for acknowledgement on priority, Lorentz
> barely apologized ONLY for "local time". By then, Lorentz was the chaperon of Einstein and brought him to the conference.

Lorentz stated that he didn't know of Voigt's work. If he did, he said,
he wouldn't have derived his own from scratch.

Of course, Richard Hertz, who conjures up all sorts of evil in the minds
of people (that he doesn't like) and pretends it is true, will claim,
without evidence, of course, that Lorentz stole Voigt's work.

Einstein's contribution was showing that Lorentz's equations could be
derived only from a constant speed of light and the principle of
relativity. Also that any sort of aether didn't contribute to the outcome.

> Another sold out cretin, submitting to the force of zionist science, politics and economy.

There is the conspiracy theory that all cranks have lurking, to explain
everything. Especially conspiracies that THE JOOOOZZ DID IT!

[Python]

this is not what they are saying.

[Volney]

Voigt screwed up. His equations were _almost_ correct except they were
all off by a factor of γ. So he was not the father of relativity. Maybe
he pulled out too soon.

[Volney]

He also declared length contraction being invalid since he has no use
for it while welding metal.

[Volney]

A clock on a GPS satellite is seen as running fast (not slow) on earth,
but local to a GPS satellite the clock runs at its normal rate. Thing
is, nobody is there and everyone is on earth, therefore not local to it,
so everyone (on earth) would see the clock running fast.

A train blowing its horn while speeding toward a station will be heard
as a higher pitch to someone at the station due to Doppler effect. But
local to the horn (that is, on the train), the horn is at its correct pitch.

(yeah I know it's a bad comparison, audio Doppler effect vs. GR effects
on a signal, but I remember who I am dealing with so it needs dumbing down)

[whodat]

He's not even a legitimate welder because there is a use for "stitch
welding" in order to reduce deformations and it is clear to me he
isn't versed in the finer points.

[whodat]

The problem is, of course, that these topics cannot be dumbed down
enough for most of these readers to understand the principles correctly.

Just look at the current correspondence between Starmaker and myself.
The problems manifest easily because a "little bit of knowledge is
dangerous." People like Starmaker live in a world oblivious to both
relativity and non-linearity. Classic entry level crank stuff.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 07:02:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 4:55 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,
> >> They aren't . Stick to welding.
> > They aren't? So why are scientists saying that a clock in a GPS satellite is slower than a clock on earth and has to be adjusted to be the same?
> A clock on a GPS satellite is seen as running fast (not slow) on earth,
> but local to a GPS satellite the clock runs at its normal rate.

No, stupid Mike, sorry, it runs 9 192 631 774 instead
9 192 631 770.
Of course, when launched it was adjusted to the
wannabe standards of your bunch of idiots. It didn't work
(common sense was warning you) so it was switched to
Newton mode.

[JanPB]

It's simply false that whoever was the first to write an equation was
the creator of the theory using it.

--
Jan

[Robert Winn]

See, whodat, even scientists can get something right once in a while. I never have taken the test to be certified as a welder. When I was working for a steel fabrication company, I made handrails, and in Arizona you do not need to be certified to make handrails because they are not structural. You have to be certified to weld on structural steel. Now most of what I weld is farm machinery. You do not need to be certified to weld farm machinery. All you have to do is make sure your welds are good because if they are not, farmers will not want to have you weld on their machinery. Welding is sort of like relativity. With relativity, all you have to do is make sure your equations work.

[Robert Winn]

Thank you, that is correct. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster. It is the kind of mistake I make when I have to converse with Einstein disciples. When I am not talking to Einstein disciples I can keep it correct because I refer it to the solar system. The planet Mercury is moving the fastest because it is under the greatest gravitation. The planet Mercury has the slowest clock. The outer planets have faster clocks because they are less affected by gravitation. They are also moving slower. So the solar system seems to indicate to me that there is a set of equations that would describe the rates of all these clocks without having to adjust by saying, This part of the rate of the clock is computed by Special Relativity, and this party is computed by General Relativity because experiment shows that the actual rate of the clock is between what is computed by each theory. I don't see the need for Special Relativity. Mercury is the fastest planet because it is closest to the sun. Special relativity says that a faster moving planet would have a slower clock. General Relativity says that more gravitation causes a slower clock. Pluto would have the fastest clock. It is moving the slowest and has the least gravitational attraction to the sun. A slower moving planet would have a faster clock than Mercury. A planet further from the sun would have a faster clock than Mercury.
Now there is one further thing that has to be considered, which is the Principle of Equivalence. If a satellite the size of a basketball is put in orbit around the sun at the same distance as Mercury, it would travel in its orbit at the same speed as Mercury, as could be proven by its distance from Mercury if it was orbiting in the same plane. But what about the time of a clock in the satellite?
Would it be the same time as the time of a clock on Mercury?
Or we could consider a baseball put in orbit around the earth at the distance of the moon from earth. The principle of equivalence shows that the moon and the baseball are orbiting earth at the same speed, but would a cesium atom on the moon have the same rate of transitions as a cesium atom on the baseball?
How does the mass of an orbiting planet or satellite affect the rate of transitions of cesium atoms, since scientists say that the rate of transitions of cesium atoms is the
measurement for time. It would seem to me that the orbiting body with the greatest mass would have the slowest clock.
If Jupiter was at the distance from the sun that Mercury is, would its clock be slower than Mercury's?
Or does the only thing that determines the rate of the clock be the distance from the sun the way Newton's equations show?
In any event, scientists do not answer these questions. They never answer actual questions about relativity.

[Robert Winn]

Well, actually, I have no use for it when considering relativity. I keep distances as they actually are. That way I do not end up with twins that have different ages, poles that are moving at high speed through barns with the doors of the barn closed, attempts to reach the nearest star, or trillion dollar particle accelerators the way scientists do. I can keep what I do within the realm of reality. That is not to say I do not make mistakes. The difference between my mistakes and the mistakes made by scientists is that my mistakes are easy to correct.

[RichD]

On February 21, JanPB wrote:
>>> Yes, it's an obvious Einstein Derangement Syndrome. Strangely enough,
>>> high IQ offers no protection against this sort of mental pathogen.
>
>> Au contraire, it makes some people more vulnerable.
>> They think that they can think.
>
> Yes, this became VERY obvious during the pandemic and also during Trump's
> presidency. A FAPP mass hysteria on both coasts of the US which is where
> the US intelligentsia resides. Future sociologists will have a field day studying
> this phenomenon. I haven't seen such a thing even in the communist Poland.

Did you follow the latest fiasco?
https://pen.org/press-release/student-disruption-of-a-judges-speech-at-stanford-u-deserved-a-forceful-defense-of-free-speech-by-the-administration-says-pen-america/

Especially the behavior of the administrator/rabble rouser,
the supposed adult in the room.

Look at the bastardized language they employ. Orwell's "1984"
plumbed this in depth: Newspeak. It was inspired by soviet
russia, and they recognized themselves, banning his books.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Now:
SPEECH IS VIOLENCE
VIOLENCE IS SPEECH

--
Rich

[The Starmaker]

The Atomic Bomb

(see 1905 paper)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> metaphysics with no practical application.
>
> Newton rules, undisputed.
> Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.
>
> Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> and zero legacy.
>
> Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> more to physics (and chemistry).

His genius lead to a better understanding.
He went away from his Nobel light particle.
The world did not like that.
He was the first of his kind.

[Jim Pennino]

In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Atomic Bomb

Actually his work led to hundreds of things such as paper towels,
lasers, the GNSS systems, nuclear reactors, photocells, and many, many
more that can be found by a Google search, but this isn't a real
question, you just want to rant your kook world view.

[The Starmaker]

I don't see any paper towels in this picture
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg

[Jim Pennino]

In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > The Atomic Bomb
>>
>> Actually his work led to hundreds of things such as paper towels,
>> lasers, the GNSS systems, nuclear reactors, photocells, and many, many
>> more that can be found by a Google search, but this isn't a real
>> question, you just want to rant your kook world view.
>
> I don't see any paper towels in this picture
> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg

So what, you are an idiot.

His first article published was an analyses of wicking, which was the
basic groundwork for making absorbent paper.

[Richard Hertz]

He invented the suppository too, and became addict to it.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The biggest delusion of relativists is that Einstein and relativity had anything to do with the atomic bomb. Rutherford and Soddy had nothing but contempt for relativity.