On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:55:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip intro>
>
> CORRECTION ON TRANSLATION FROM GERMAN:
> > § 7. Can the gravitational field be traced back to a scalar?
> >
> > In view of the undeniable complexity of the theory of gravitation represented here, we must seriously ask ourselves
> > whether the view that has hitherto been exclusively held, according to which the gravitational field is reduced to a
> > scalar Φ, is not the only obvious and justified one.
> >
> > I will briefly explain why we think we have to answer this question NEGATIVELY. Characterization of the gravitational
> > field by a scalar presents a path which is completely analogous to the one taken above.
> >
> > One starts with the equation of motion of the material point in Hamiltonian form
> >
> > δ { ∫ Φ ds } = 0
> >
> > where ds is the four-dimensional line element of the usual relativity theory and Φ is a scalar, and then proceeds quite
> > analogously to the previous one, without having to leave the usual relativity theory.
> >
> > Here, too, the material process of any kind is characterized by a stress-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ . But with this view a scalar is
> > decisive for the interaction between the gravitational field and the material process. This scalar, as Mr. Laue pointed out
> > to me, can only be
> >
> > Σᵤ Tᵤᵤ = P
> >
> > WHICH I want to call the "Laue Scalar". ONE can do justice to the principle of the equivalence of INERTIAL and
> > GRAVITATIONAL mass here to a certain extent. Mr Laue pointed out to me that for a closed system it is CERTAIN that
> >
> > ∫ P dV = ∫ T₄₄ dτ
> *** HERE IS REMARKING THAT, IN THIS WAY, THERE ARE NO GUARANTIES THAT INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS BE EQUAL.
>
> *** FROM "§ 6. Influence of the gravitational field on physical processes, especially on electromagnetic processes.":
>
> *** "Because momentum and energy play a role in every physical process, the latter in turn determine the gravitational field
> *** and are influenced by it, the variables gᵤᵥ determining the gravitational field must appear in all physical systems of equations.."
>
> *** THIS REMARK IS KEY FOR THE USE OF RICCI AND LEVI-CIVITA METHOD TO INCORPORATE GRAVITATION IN GR. IN THE
> LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ, 10 OUT OF 16 TERMS CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS
> OR DYNAMIC FIELDS.
>
> GROSSMAN, A MATHEMATICIAN EXPERT IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS (NOT A GENIUS, HOWEVER)
> APPRECIATED HOW COMPATIBLE LEVI-CIVITA GEOMETRY WAS WITH A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME. IN FACT, THE ONLY
> PURE MATHEMATICAL THEORY AVAILABLE BY 1912 TO DEAL WITH THE LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ.
>
>
> > From this one can see that, according to this view, its total energy is decisive for the WEIGHT of a closed system.
> > The WEIGHT of incomplete systems would depend on the orthogonal stresses T₁₁ etc. to which the system is subjected.
> > This gives rise to consequences that seem unacceptable to me, as the example of cavity radiation will show.
> >
> > It is well known that the scalar P disappears for the radiation in vacuum. If the radiation is enclosed in a massless reflecting box,
> > its walls experience tensile stresses which cause the system - taken as a whole - THERE IS A GRAVITATIONAL mass ∫ P dτ, which
> > is the energy E corresponds to the radiation.
> *** HERE, EINSTEIN IS TRYING TO DEAL WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS IN THE SAME WAY HE DID
> IN HIS 1911 PAPER, WHERE HE STATED:
>
> M'.g.h - M.g.h = E.g.h/c² OR (M' - M) = E/c²
>
> "The increase in gravitational mass is thus equal to E/c², and therefore equal to the increase in inertial mass as given
> by the theory of relativity."
> > Instead of enclosing the radiation in a hollow box, I imagine it to be limited
> >
> > 1. through the reflective walls of a fixed shaft S,
> > 2. by two vertically movable reflective walls W1 and W2, which are firmly connected to one another by a rod.
> >
> > In this case, the mass ∫ P dτ of the movable system is only the THIRD PART of the value that occurs in a box that is movable as a
> > whole. In order to raise the radiation against a gravity field, one would only have to spend the third part of the work than in the
> > case just considered, where the radiation is enclosed in a box.
> *** REMEMBER THAT THE BOX IS MASSLESS. EINSTEIN IS PULLING OUT 1905 HASENHORL PAPER WHERE M = 4/3 E/c².
>
> OBSERVE THAT, ACCORDING TO HASERNHORL, THE INCREASE IN MASS BY RADIATION IS M = 4/3 E/c² = M = 1/3 E/c² + E/c².
>
> SO, 1/3 OF MASS E/c² IS "WASTED" IN WORK, IN ORDER TO EQUAL "HIS FORMULA" M = E/c² FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM.
>
> AND, IN THIS PURE SAMPLE OF SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES, HE USE HASENHORL TO TORN DOWN VON LAUE ARGUMENTS.
>
> AND THE INEPT BUT STREET SMART EINSTEIN WAS JUST WARMING UP TO FUDGE FACTS AND THEORY: 43"/cy; 1.75" deflection...
> > This seems unacceptable to me. I must admit, of course, that for me the most effective argument for rejecting such a theory is
> > based on the conviction that relativity is not only against orthogonal linear substitutions, but against a much broader group of
> > substitutions.
> >
> > But we are not justified to assert this argument because we were unable to find the (most general) substitution group that belongs
> > to our gravitational equations.
> *** REPHRASING IT: GROSSMANN COULDN'T FIND AN EXPRESSION FOR THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, BUT WE HAVE TO PUBLISH
> THIS CRAP ANYWAY. WE DID A LOT OF P.R. AND PUBLICITY STUNTS TO DISCREDIT OTHER COMPETING THEORIES, SO WE
> ARE FORCED TO PUBLISH THIS SCRATCH (ENTWURF), TO HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST NORDSTROM AND MIE.
>
> WE CAN'T PUBLISH OUR "SECRET CALCULATIONS" WITH BESSO, ABOUT MERCURY, BECAUSE WE GOT THIS STUPID FORMULA:
>
> δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = - 2.3"/century (ACTUALLY, AFTER CORRECTING ERRORS, GIVES -0.0012”/century)
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/oLRiO1XB0fU/m/dI7HBmg2AwAJ
>
> SO, WE ARE PUBLISHING 32 PAGES OF "STATE OF THE ART" CRAP. PLEASE, WAIT 30 MONTHS FOR HILBERT COMING IN.
>
> <snip>

I read this, I figure it's as important critically to "understand", it,
where it's not right how it's not right.

I.e. where it's not important critically where it's not right,
is only for what it references that to it is relevant, here
what is physical interpretation of moments under usual
systems of transform of invariance, about what happens
when the same metaphor is used for contrary interpretations,
that it's not one or the other, seemingly for makign the usual
distinction that "this is invariance here" and "this is invariance
here", that each has its own gauge and moments for transfer
and so on.

That differential geometry adds this up or makes for it, is among
reasons why real analysis usually is the best tool for physics.

And sound models, here what results from hypothesis,
or "naturally sound models".

Then for the photon as in charge and kinetic, i.e. for
the electro-optical and thermal for "SR and usually GR's
electro-optical after GR's usual combined particle model,
eg the Standard Model with QED, QCD, in usual gauge
theories and with both optical and geometric boosts",
it's a usual elements.

On 11/7/2021 2:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.11.2021 um 18:45 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 11/6/2021 2:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:12:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Never forget this: Engineers could never create the stuff which brings
>>>> quality of life without physicists discovering the science which can be
>>>> engineered to do so.
>>>
>>> Forget this immediately, as this can cause a trauma on your poor head,
>>> which has enough problems dealing with you posting as an EE.
>>>
>>> THE MODERN WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY ENGINEERS:
>>>
>>> - GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL GRID WAS
>>> INVENTED AND DEVELOPED BY ENGINEERS.
>>
>
>> Who learned about electricity and how it works from scientists.
>
> The main characters in the development of electricity were people like
> Franklin, Tesla or Edison, of which none was a physicist.

People can have multiple roles. Franklin, did a little physics research
and then invented (engineered) a few things. Tesla also did both.
Edison didn't do any science, he was an inventor (or thief, depending
who you talk to).

>> Who learned about combustion chemistry and mechanics and how it all
>> works from scientists.
>
> Chemistry is actually an offspring from alchemy and that from occultism.

Regardless of origins, chemistry is now definitely a science, performed
by scientists.

>>> - AEROSPACE INDUSTRY WAS CONCEIVED AND DEVELOPED, ON ANY BRANCH, BY
>>> ENGINEERS.
>>
>> Who learned about aerodynamics and mechanics and how it works from
>> scientists.
>
> Aerodynamics is a child of the military-industrial complex, mainly.

With scientists doing the science, and engineers developing things from it.

>
> Civil use was also mainly created by engineers in companies, who build
> planes.

From science created by scientists.

>>> - ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS WERE CONCEIVED, DEVELOPED AND
>>> INTERNERWORKED BY ENGINEERS.
>>
>> Who learned about electricity and logic and how it works from scientists
>> and mathematicians.
>
>
> The first computers were mechanical devices and developed by people like
> Konrad Zuse, who also invented a certain programming paradigma, falsely
> called 'von Neumann architecture'.
>
> Zuse was an engineer.

But he needed the mathematics behind it all. (yes I know mathematicians
aren't scientists but are closer to being scientists than being
engineers) And all the physics to actually implement such devices.

> The first smartphone was developed by
>
> quote:
>
> " IBM engineer Frank Canova realised that chip-and-wireless technology
> was becoming small enough to use in handheld devices."

Several layers removed from the science, but how could anyone make that
chip technology at all without the semiconductor science from chemists
and physicists?

On Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 16:30:34 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> With scientists doing the science, and engineers developing things from it.

Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks set, to 9 192 631 770
required by your religion or to 9 192 631 774, required by common sense?

> But he needed the mathematics behind it all.

Sure, mathematics. In particular, Euclidean geometry,
rejected and announced false by your bunch of idiots.

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:00:37 AM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 16:30:34 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > With scientists doing the science, and engineers developing things from it.
> Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks set, to 9 192 631 770
> required by your religion or to 9 192 631 774, required by common sense?
> > But he needed the mathematics behind it all.
> Sure, mathematics. In particular, Euclidean geometry,
> rejected and announced false by your bunch of idiots.

That is faulting people who learned that the probabilistic
interpretation naturally has a theoretical model in multiple
worlds hypothesis, allowing them to model symmetry-breaking
in breaking the frame the Euclidean, which is writing off what
otherwise is so maintained altogether. I.e., that is faulting those
people, when really the argument "it's not Euclidean" refused is
to be understood as the framework for it, where that otherwise
it's not necessarily multiple-worlds interpretation, even with
what is a statistical interpretation.

Or just because out of the entire physics learning that some people
fault what is a Euclidean hypothesis because of for example multiple-
worlds hypothesis to uphold their statistical hypothesis in the face
of uncertainty, that's not to say that there's a fair statistical hypothesis
that's a Euclidean hypothesis.

I.e. a fair deterministic hypothesis.

Been reading Waldrop's "Complexity ...".

Then, besides questions in determinacy, there are some mathematics
what result "hey, these techniques alter forms or have error terms,
there is no physical interpretation where time is negative or terms
aren't not in units, besides what they do say there's something they
don't say, I refuse", is for that besides that it's accomodated what
are their forms and here for the limits of the linear and the singular,
there's not faulting such if unstated rules as they are, but that any
miconstrual is of course indefensible if not ignorant.

So, there is more for faulting some usual "my mathematics quit,
yours did too" than "these mathematics quit". [...maintaining
all their interpretation.]

Also all the terms are always in the domain. (Which is general.)

Then it seems for pointing out the correctness about the ephemeris
of the terrestrial frame, including GPS, here what I have pointed
out the usefulness of atomic clock lattices in the measurement of
stress in the terrestrial frame, of the gravitational frame, as so
what results from for example a uni-potential model of the space frame.

JanPB wrote:

>> This is not a reply. It's a CONFESSION of your impotence confronting
>> facts that can ruin the leftovers of conscience that you may have.
>
> No, it's merely a statement of fact: you do not understand the subject
> you are attempting to "critique". There is nothing complicated about
> this sort of thing, everyone is NOT able to sensibly critique SOMETHING.
> For you it's, say, physics. For me it's, say, wine making.

and physics. You are denying facts in physics.

Am 07.11.2021 um 16:30 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 11/7/2021 2:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.11.2021 um 18:45 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>> On 11/6/2021 2:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:12:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Never forget this: Engineers could never create the stuff which brings
>>>>> quality of life without physicists discovering the science which
>>>>> can be
>>>>> engineered to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Forget this immediately, as this can cause a trauma on your poor head,
>>>> which has enough problems dealing with you posting as an EE.
>>>>
>>>> THE MODERN WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY ENGINEERS:
>>>>
>>>> - GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL GRID WAS
>>>> INVENTED AND DEVELOPED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>
>>
>>> Who learned about electricity and how it works from scientists.
>>
>> The main characters in the development of electricity were people like
>> Franklin, Tesla or Edison, of which none was a physicist.
>
> People can have multiple roles. Franklin, did a little physics research
> and then invented (engineered) a few things. Tesla also did both.
> Edison didn't do any science, he was an inventor (or thief, depending
> who you talk to).

Edison was mainly a manager, who invented, managed and owned a 'think tank'.

He also invented a few things himself, but not that many. His main
invention was the 'electric chair'.

>>> Who learned about combustion chemistry and mechanics and how it all
>>> works from scientists.
>>
>> Chemistry is actually an offspring from alchemy and that from occultism.
>
> Regardless of origins, chemistry is now definitely a science, performed
> by scientists.

Not all, what chemicists do, could be called science, even if chemistry
is a science.

Roughly, science is about studiing nature and engineering about creating
new things.

>>>> - AEROSPACE INDUSTRY WAS CONCEIVED AND DEVELOPED, ON ANY BRANCH, BY
>>>> ENGINEERS.
>>>
>>> Who learned about aerodynamics and mechanics and how it works from
>>> scientists.
>>
>> Aerodynamics is a child of the military-industrial complex, mainly.
>
> With scientists doing the science, and engineers developing things from it.

Most engineers do not give a s*** on what physicists do.

For instance SRT or big-bang theory are something, which entertains
physicists for ages, while engineers simply do not care.

>>
>> Civil use was also mainly created by engineers in companies, who build
>> planes.
>
> From science created by scientists.

Most, if not all, was done by engineers, who actually built devices. In
this case that were things, which enabled to fly.

Science is the study of nature. There are many flying things in nature,
like clouds, insects and birds.

But it required engineers to build planes.

>>>> - ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS WERE CONCEIVED, DEVELOPED AND
>>>> INTERNERWORKED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>
>>> Who learned about electricity and logic and how it works from scientists
>>> and mathematicians.
>>
>>
>> The first computers were mechanical devices and developed by people
>> like Konrad Zuse, who also invented a certain programming paradigma,
>> falsely called 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>
>> Zuse was an engineer.
>
> But he needed the mathematics behind it all. (yes I know mathematicians
> aren't scientists but are closer to being scientists than being
> engineers) And all the physics to actually implement such devices.

Zuse invented a certain concept for programming, which is now called
'von Neumann architecture'.

So, in a way, he engineered a mathematical problem.

>> The first smartphone was developed by
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> " IBM engineer Frank Canova realised that chip-and-wireless technology
>> was becoming small enough to use in handheld devices."
>
> Several layers removed from the science, but how could anyone make that
> chip technology at all without the semiconductor science from chemists
> and physicists?

Just look at how engineers work.

Most inventions were not based on science, but on tinkering around with
tools and strange substances.

Then, after many iterations, something useful came after many failiures.

TH

On 11/15/2021 1:21 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.11.2021 um 16:30 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 11/7/2021 2:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 06.11.2021 um 18:45 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>> On 11/6/2021 2:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:12:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Never forget this: Engineers could never create the stuff which
>>>>>> brings
>>>>>> quality of life without physicists discovering the science which
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> engineered to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget this immediately, as this can cause a trauma on your poor head,
>>>>> which has enough problems dealing with you posting as an EE.
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MODERN WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY ENGINEERS:
>>>>>
>>>>> - GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL GRID WAS
>>>>> INVENTED AND DEVELOPED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Who learned about electricity and how it works from scientists.
>>>
>>> The main characters in the development of electricity were people like
>>> Franklin, Tesla or Edison, of which none was a physicist.
>>
>> People can have multiple roles. Franklin, did a little physics research
>> and then invented (engineered) a few things.  Tesla also did both.
>> Edison didn't do any science, he was an inventor (or thief, depending
>> who you talk to).
>
>
> Edison was mainly a manager, who invented, managed and owned a 'think
> tank'.
>
> He also invented a few things himself, but not that many. His main
> invention was the 'electric chair'.
>
>>>> Who learned about combustion chemistry and mechanics and how it all
>>>> works from scientists.
>>>
>>> Chemistry is actually an offspring from alchemy and that from occultism.
>>
>> Regardless of origins, chemistry is now definitely a science, performed
>> by scientists.
>
>
> Not all, what chemicists do, could be called science, even if chemistry
> is a science.

What does that mean? That the guy who makes meth in his garage who
jokingly calls himself a "chemist" isn't doing science?
>
> Roughly, science is about studiing nature and engineering about creating
> new things.

From the knowledge learned by scientists. (often many steps removed,
the engineer designing a radio will base his work on other engineers'
work, who based theirs on other engineers...back to the science of the
discovery of radio waves, electricity, etc.
>
>>>>> - AEROSPACE INDUSTRY WAS CONCEIVED AND DEVELOPED, ON ANY BRANCH, BY
>>>>> ENGINEERS.
>>>>
>>>> Who learned about aerodynamics and mechanics and how it works from
>>>> scientists.
>>>
>>> Aerodynamics is a child of the military-industrial complex, mainly.
>>
>> With scientists doing the science, and engineers developing things
>> from it.
>
> Most engineers do not give a s*** on what physicists do.

Speak for yourself, pretend engineer.
They give a shit what physicists have developed, so they can use that
knowledge to develop cool stuff. (as I said, the knowledge of
physicists may be many stages removed)
>
> For instance SRT or big-bang theory are something, which entertains
> physicists for ages, while engineers simply do not care.

While Big Bang knowledge isn't very useful (yet?), and SR currently
doesn't have gobs of applications, the knowledge of SR was and is
essential for development of modern semiconductors, esp. ICs with a few
nm sized transistors, things like PET scanners, particle beam medical
radiation treatment, particle accelerators (oh wait, you'll object since
they tend to be used for more science), large color CRTs (obsoleteish),
taking advantage of SR effects in heavy atoms for new chemistry, the GPS
system of course, etc.
>
>>>
>>> Civil use was also mainly created by engineers in companies, who build
>>> planes.
>>
>>  From science created by scientists.
>
>
> Most, if not all, was done by engineers,

Who learned so much from scientists

> who actually built devices.

Which is what engineers do. They take science and make cool things from it.

> Science is the study of nature. There are many flying things in nature,
> like clouds, insects and birds.
>
> But it required engineers to build planes.

And it required scientists to come up with the aerodynamics, fluid and
turbulence theory, materials engineering, etc. which the engineers
needed and used.
>
>
>>>>> - ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS WERE CONCEIVED, DEVELOPED AND
>>>>> INTERNERWORKED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>>
>>>> Who learned about electricity and logic and how it works from
>>>> scientists
>>>> and mathematicians.
>>>
>>>
>>> The first computers were mechanical devices and developed by people
>>> like Konrad Zuse, who also invented a certain programming paradigma,
>>> falsely called 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>>
>>> Zuse was an engineer.
>>
>> But he needed the mathematics behind it all. (yes I know mathematicians
>> aren't scientists but are closer to being scientists than being
>> engineers) And all the physics to actually implement such devices.
>
> Zuse invented a certain concept for programming, which is now called
> 'von Neumann architecture'.

Sounds like mathematicians, Zuse and von Neumann.
>
> So, in a way, he engineered a mathematical problem.

Acting as a scientist. Computer science is a funny area since it's not
a hard science, more logic and math.
>
>>> The first smartphone was developed by
>>>
>>> quote:
>>>
>>> " IBM engineer Frank Canova realised that chip-and-wireless technology
>>> was becoming small enough to use in handheld devices."
>>
>> Several layers removed from the science, but how could anyone make that
>> chip technology at all without the semiconductor science from chemists
>> and physicists?
>
> Just look at how engineers work.

As one, I already know.

> Most inventions were not based on science, but on tinkering around with
> tools and strange substances.

HAHAHAHA!!!! That's not engineering! That's more mad science and
getting lucky. And these days, fewer and fewer "engineering" advances
will EVER happen this way in the future! Engineers DESIGN stuff.

Anyway, another example of you not knowing what engineering involves.
I think I am safer stating that you are either a wannabe engineer, or
perhaps you're like Ken Seto (where is Ken?) who WAS an engineer but
lost enough of his marbles (senility?) that he can't even do math.
>
> Then, after many iterations, something useful came after many failiures.

Not engineering! Sure some failures are inevitable, but try by guess and
hoping it works is a mad scientist's lab. Engineers DESIGN stuff.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 08:54:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Which is what engineers do. They take science and make cool things from it.

Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks built, with 9,192,631,770
as required by your moronic science, or with 9,192,631,774=1/24*60*60 of a day,
as required by common sense?

Since your idiot gurus, instead providing useful info, started mumbling what
we're allegedly FORCED to for the sake of Holy Symmetry - they're simply
pissed at. That's how messing with common sense ends.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 07.11.2021 um 16:30 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 11/7/2021 2:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 06.11.2021 um 18:45 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>> On 11/6/2021 2:24 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:12:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Never forget this: Engineers could never create the stuff which brings
>>>>>> quality of life without physicists discovering the science which
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> engineered to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget this immediately, as this can cause a trauma on your poor head,
>>>>> which has enough problems dealing with you posting as an EE.
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MODERN WORLD HAS BEEN CREATED BY ENGINEERS:
>>>>>
>>>>> - GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL GRID WAS
>>>>> INVENTED AND DEVELOPED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Who learned about electricity and how it works from scientists.
>>>
>>> The main characters in the development of electricity were people like
>>> Franklin, Tesla or Edison, of which none was a physicist.
>>
>> People can have multiple roles. Franklin, did a little physics research
>> and then invented (engineered) a few things. Tesla also did both.
>> Edison didn't do any science, he was an inventor (or thief, depending
>> who you talk to).
>
>
> Edison was mainly a manager, who invented, managed and owned a 'think tank'.
>
> He also invented a few things himself, but not that many. His main
> invention was the 'electric chair'.

Why on earth would you put that forward as his “main” invention?

>
>>>> Who learned about combustion chemistry and mechanics and how it all
>>>> works from scientists.
>>>
>>> Chemistry is actually an offspring from alchemy and that from occultism.
>>
>> Regardless of origins, chemistry is now definitely a science, performed
>> by scientists.
>
>
> Not all, what chemicists do, could be called science, even if chemistry
> is a science.
>
> Roughly, science is about studiing nature and engineering about creating
> new things.
>
>>>>> - AEROSPACE INDUSTRY WAS CONCEIVED AND DEVELOPED, ON ANY BRANCH, BY
>>>>> ENGINEERS.
>>>>
>>>> Who learned about aerodynamics and mechanics and how it works from
>>>> scientists.
>>>
>>> Aerodynamics is a child of the military-industrial complex, mainly.
>>
>> With scientists doing the science, and engineers developing things from it.
>
> Most engineers do not give a s*** on what physicists do.
>
> For instance SRT or big-bang theory are something, which entertains
> physicists for ages, while engineers simply do not care.

Well, that’s not true, though it may be true for you and the other
engineers you met in your line of work. You’ve obviously never talked with
any of the hundreds of engineers at a particle accelerator facility. You
didn’t know engineers worked at particle accelerators?

>
>>>
>>> Civil use was also mainly created by engineers in companies, who build
>>> planes.
>>
>> From science created by scientists.
>
>
> Most, if not all, was done by engineers, who actually built devices. In
> this case that were things, which enabled to fly.
>
> Science is the study of nature. There are many flying things in nature,
> like clouds, insects and birds.
>
> But it required engineers to build planes.
>
>
>>>>> - ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS WERE CONCEIVED, DEVELOPED AND
>>>>> INTERNERWORKED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>>
>>>> Who learned about electricity and logic and how it works from scientists
>>>> and mathematicians.
>>>
>>>
>>> The first computers were mechanical devices and developed by people
>>> like Konrad Zuse, who also invented a certain programming paradigma,
>>> falsely called 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>>
>>> Zuse was an engineer.
>>
>> But he needed the mathematics behind it all. (yes I know mathematicians
>> aren't scientists but are closer to being scientists than being
>> engineers) And all the physics to actually implement such devices.
>
> Zuse invented a certain concept for programming, which is now called
> 'von Neumann architecture'.
>
> So, in a way, he engineered a mathematical problem.
>
>>> The first smartphone was developed by
>>>
>>> quote:
>>>
>>> " IBM engineer Frank Canova realised that chip-and-wireless technology
>>> was becoming small enough to use in handheld devices."
>>
>> Several layers removed from the science, but how could anyone make that
>> chip technology at all without the semiconductor science from chemists
>> and physicists?
>
> Just look at how engineers work.
>
> Most inventions were not based on science, but on tinkering around with
> tools and strange substances.

No, sorry, that’s silly. Engineers do not do the bulk of their work with
trial and error tinkering. That would be MASSIVELY inefficient. What they
use are design principles, which come from established science.

>
> Then, after many iterations, something useful came after many failiures.
>
>
> TH
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 11/15/2021 4:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 08:54:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>
>> Which is what engineers do. They take science and make cool things from it.
>
> Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks built, with 9,192,631,770
> as required by your moronic science, or with 9,192,631,774=1/24*60*60 of a day,
> as required by common sense?

Because engineers use the science of Einstein's GR to know the GPS clock
must tick once per 9,192,631,774 Cs cycle for the earth receiver to
receive it as once per 9,192,631,770, because t' != t.

As I said, engineers use science (such as GR) to create cool things
(like the GPS system). Whether you like it or not.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 4:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 08:54:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which is what engineers do. They take science and make cool things from it.
>>
>> Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks built, with 9,192,631,770
>> as required by your moronic science, or with 9,192,631,774=1/24*60*60 of a day,
>> as required by common sense?

I have to admit, I’m intrigued by this phrase “as required by common
sense”. I wasn’t aware that common sense is a REQUIREMENT for anything from
an engineering perspective. I can understand if someone might PREFER that
an engineering solution appeals to common sense, but never that common
sense has some ruling authority for an engineering practice. Perhaps if Woz
could point to something in engineering textbooks or certification
processes that refers to common sense as a firm requirement…..

If not, it’s probably just smoke.

>
> Because engineers use the science of Einstein's GR to know the GPS clock
> must tick once per 9,192,631,774 Cs cycle for the earth receiver to
> receive it as once per 9,192,631,770, because t' != t.
>
> As I said, engineers use science (such as GR) to create cool things
> (like the GPS system). Whether you like it or not.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:41:11 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I have to admit, I’m intrigued by this phrase “as required by common
> sense”. I wasn’t aware that common sense is a REQUIREMENT for anything from
> an engineering perspective. I can understand if someone might PREFER that
> an engineering solution appeals to common sense, but never that common
> sense has some ruling authority for an engineering practice. Perhaps if Woz
> could point to something in engineering textbooks or certification
> processes that refers to common sense as a firm requirement…..
>
> If not, it’s probably just smoke.

In Spanish, Ingeniero comes from ingenio: saber, inteligencia, agudeza, talento.

In English: wit, ingenuity, inventiveness, discovery, insight, talent, practicality, etc.

common sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Engineers have all of the above and, particularly, common sense.

Physicists and mathematicians don't have common sense. Chemist do have it.

It takes five theoretical physicists to change a lamp: two will work to find the "least action" to do the job; one will hold the
spare lamp, wondering if an integer number of turns will work, rounded to the first order; one will try to find the handyman
with despair and the last one will try to find where to plagiarize the method.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:41:11 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I have to admit, I’m intrigued by this phrase “as required by common
>> sense”. I wasn’t aware that common sense is a REQUIREMENT for anything from
>> an engineering perspective. I can understand if someone might PREFER that
>> an engineering solution appeals to common sense, but never that common
>> sense has some ruling authority for an engineering practice. Perhaps if Woz
>> could point to something in engineering textbooks or certification
>> processes that refers to common sense as a firm requirement…..
>>
>> If not, it’s probably just smoke.
>
> In Spanish, Ingeniero comes from ingenio: saber, inteligencia, agudeza, talento.
>
> In English: wit, ingenuity, inventiveness, discovery, insight, talent, practicality, etc.
>
> common sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
>
> Engineers have all of the above and, particularly, common sense.
>
> Physicists and mathematicians don't have common sense. Chemist do have it.
>
> It takes five theoretical physicists to change a lamp: two will work to
> find the "least action" to do the job; one will hold the
> spare lamp, wondering if an integer number of turns will work, rounded to
> the first order; one will try to find the handyman
> with despair and the last one will try to find where to plagiarize the method.
>
>
>
>

Common sense is the process of the human mind generating rules for natural
behavior based on common experience, which can be used to predict outcomes
that are usually correct in similar circumstances of common experience. It
is a collection of “rules of thumb” that provide a survival strategy for
humans as a species.

Where this gets tricky is where humans extrapolate a rule of thumb as being
always true, or by insisting that it applies to all of nature and not just
to the domain of everyday experience.

“One thing cannot be in two places at the same time” is a common sense
rule. “Blow hard on something light and it will move away from your mouth”
is another one. “I can climb this vine and it will hold me up, so it will
also stay intact if I use it to swing from one branch to another” is
another one.

All of those common sense rules work pretty well in ordinary life, but it
isn’t hard to produce examples where they simply are wrong. And that’s
because they are rules of thumb and not reliable laws of nature.

Now, if an engineer like you wishes to say, “Well, ok, but for everything I
care about, common sense works fine,” then by all means try to make that
work for you. However, that has nothing to do with physics.

A spectacularly BAD engineer will say that common sense is the single most
important resource for an engineer to rely on, and that anyone who doesn’t
is an idiot.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:34:50 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > In Spanish, Ingeniero comes from ingenio: saber, inteligencia, agudeza, talento.
> > In English: wit, ingenuity, inventiveness, discovery, insight, talent, practicality, etc.
> > common sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
> > Engineers have all of the above and, particularly, common sense.
> > Physicists and mathematicians don't have common sense. Chemist do have it.
> >
> > It takes five theoretical physicists to change a lamp: two will work to
> > find the "least action" to do the job; one will hold the
> > spare lamp, wondering if an integer number of turns will work, rounded to
> > the first order; one will try to find the handyman
> > with despair and the last one will try to find where to plagiarize the method.

<snip>
> It is a collection of “rules of thumb” that provide a survival strategy for humans as a species.
>
> Where this gets tricky is where humans extrapolate a rule of thumb as being always true, or by insisting that it
> applies to all of nature and not just to the domain of everyday experience.

Some "rules of thumb" in physics:

- If things in motion contracts this much in the MMX, then I can disprove its outcome. And the fucking relativity was born.

- If I put this infinitesimal value in front on this equation, then I can assign to it any set of parameters that verify that small value.
Then, I can multiply the theoretical expression by this other one, so I can cook my desired final formulae (Einstein, Mercury).

- By "rules of thumb", I can discard 2nd. order values in this approximation. Therefore M = E/c^2 (Einstein, SR).

- If I use E = Mc^2 to equate it to the energy in the gravitational field, then frequency of light depends on gravity (Einstein, 1911).

- If I use correctly this riemannian shit for N dimensions, cut it to 4 dimensions and make space and time, by BRUTE FORCE, to
depend on gravitational potential, then I'll create a so FUCKING COMPLEX theory that everyone involved will try 100 years to
prove me wrong. The equations have infinite solutions. Ah ah ah, motherfuckers, DIE!, DIE! (Einstein, GR).

- It's not cheating if you don't get caught (Einstein, forever).

- I know that you'll not believe me, but I proved 1.75" of arc for light deflection when passing by Sun's surface (Eddington, 1919).

- It's not the square of energy. Obviously (and conveniently) it's the square of energy density's probability (Born, 1926).

- It's obvious that the universe was created in 10E-32 sec after the dot went off, and also inflated 10E+08 times (Guth, 1977).

- It's obvious that quarks have fractional e charge (and also come in colors). Disprove me (Gell-Man, 1968).

- Etc, etc, etc. Could write a book with those shitty rules of the thumb applied in the last 100 years in physics.

- And a medal goes to Feynman: I know that replacing infinities with desired values doesn't make sense. But it works.

Try that an engineer conceive something that CAN'T BE EXPLAINED, and try to force mass production with this. Tell me how did it go.

> “One thing cannot be in two places at the same time” is a common sense rule.

But, but Quantum Physics!

> “Blow hard on something light and it will move away from your mouth”
> is another one. “I can climb this vine and it will hold me up, so it will
> also stay intact if I use it to swing from one branch to another” is
> another one.
>
> All of those common sense rules work pretty well in ordinary life, but it
> isn’t hard to produce examples where they simply are wrong. And that’s
> because they are rules of thumb and not reliable laws of nature.
>
> Now, if an engineer like you wishes to say, “Well, ok, but for everything I
> care about, common sense works fine,” then by all means try to make that
> work for you. However, that has nothing to do with physics.
> A spectacularly BAD engineer will say that common sense is the single most
> important resource for an engineer to rely on, and that anyone who doesn’t
> is an idiot.

A spectacularly BAD engineer would go to JAIL, if malpractice is proven.

A physicist only receive encouragement to try it harder (if he's a relativist). If not, high school teaching.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:34:50 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> In Spanish, Ingeniero comes from ingenio: saber, inteligencia, agudeza, talento.
>>> In English: wit, ingenuity, inventiveness, discovery, insight, talent,
>>> practicality, etc.
>>> common sense: good sense and sound judgement in
>>> practical matters.
>>> Engineers have all of the above and, particularly, common sense.
>>> Physicists and mathematicians don't have common sense. Chemist do have it.
>>>
>>> It takes five theoretical physicists to change a lamp: two will work to
>>> find the "least action" to do the job; one will hold the
>>> spare lamp, wondering if an integer number of turns will work, rounded to
>>> the first order; one will try to find the handyman
>>> with despair and the last one will try to find where to plagiarize the method.
>
> <snip>
>> It is a collection of “rules of thumb” that provide a survival strategy
>> for humans as a species.
>>
>> Where this gets tricky is where humans extrapolate a rule of thumb as
>> being always true, or by insisting that it
>> applies to all of nature and not just to the domain of everyday experience.
>
> Some "rules of thumb" in physics:
>
> - If things in motion contracts this much in the MMX, then I can disprove
> its outcome. And the fucking relativity was born.
>
> - If I put this infinitesimal value in front on this equation, then I can
> assign to it any set of parameters that verify that small value.
> Then, I can multiply the theoretical expression by this other one, so I
> can cook my desired final formulae (Einstein, Mercury).
>
> - By "rules of thumb", I can discard 2nd. order values in this
> approximation. Therefore M = E/c^2 (Einstein, SR).
>
> - If I use E = Mc^2 to equate it to the energy in the gravitational
> field, then frequency of light depends on gravity (Einstein, 1911).
>
> - If I use correctly this riemannian shit for N dimensions, cut it to 4
> dimensions and make space and time, by BRUTE FORCE, to
> depend on gravitational potential, then I'll create a so FUCKING
> COMPLEX theory that everyone involved will try 100 years to
> prove me wrong. The equations have infinite solutions. Ah ah ah,
> motherfuckers, DIE!, DIE! (Einstein, GR).
>
> - It's not cheating if you don't get caught (Einstein, forever).
>
> - I know that you'll not believe me, but I proved 1.75" of arc for light
> deflection when passing by Sun's surface (Eddington, 1919).
>
> - It's not the square of energy. Obviously (and conveniently) it's the
> square of energy density's probability (Born, 1926).
>
> - It's obvious that the universe was created in 10E-32 sec after the dot
> went off, and also inflated 10E+08 times (Guth, 1977).
>
> - It's obvious that quarks have fractional e charge (and also come in
> colors). Disprove me (Gell-Man, 1968).
>
> - Etc, etc, etc. Could write a book with those shitty rules of the thumb
> applied in the last 100 years in physics.
>
> - And a medal goes to Feynman: I know that replacing infinities with
> desired values doesn't make sense. But it works.
>
> Try that an engineer conceive something that CAN'T BE EXPLAINED, and try
> to force mass production with this. Tell me how did it go.
>
>> “One thing cannot be in two places at the same time” is a common sense rule.
>
> But, but Quantum Physics!
>
>> “Blow hard on something light and it will move away from your mouth”
>> is another one. “I can climb this vine and it will hold me up, so it will
>> also stay intact if I use it to swing from one branch to another” is
>> another one.
>>
>> All of those common sense rules work pretty well in ordinary life, but it
>> isn’t hard to produce examples where they simply are wrong. And that’s
>> because they are rules of thumb and not reliable laws of nature.
>>
>> Now, if an engineer like you wishes to say, “Well, ok, but for everything I
>> care about, common sense works fine,” then by all means try to make that
>> work for you. However, that has nothing to do with physics.
>
>> A spectacularly BAD engineer will say that common sense is the single most
>> important resource for an engineer to rely on, and that anyone who doesn’t
>> is an idiot.
>
> A spectacularly BAD engineer would go to JAIL, if malpractice is proven.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you’re going to count as malpractice.

* Borrowing someone else’s idea. Happens all the time in engineering, not
allowed in physics?

* Use formulas that are too dense and complex for people outside the field
to understand. Happens all the time in engineering, not allowed in physics?

* Use approximations. Happens all the time in engineering, not allowed in
physics.

* Collaborate with others to produce something. Happens all the time in
engineering, not allowed in physics?

* Use principles that are not obviously correct but work. Happens all the
time in engineering, not allowed in physics?

* Iterate until the correct answer is found. Happens all the time in
engineering, not allowed in physics?

No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are
apparently told. This means these so called Geniuses must hold to a higher
standard, operating solo and with infallibility, relying on no one’s work
before them, and presenting the complete and comprehensive answer right
with the seminal publication, with no identifiable errors. AND it must be
presented in a way that any interested party from outside the field can
understand it.

After all, Elon Musk, an engineer, did not chuck a rock at the window of
his new truck at hand-toss speed and have it break the window at a launch
conference. Twice. No. An engineer would NEVER do something so callous.
He’d end up in JAIL!

>
> A physicist only receive encouragement to try it harder (if he's a
> relativist). If not, high school teaching.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 1:04:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:41:11 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I have to admit, I’m intrigued by this phrase “as required by common
> > sense”. I wasn’t aware that common sense is a REQUIREMENT for anything from
> > an engineering perspective. I can understand if someone might PREFER that
> > an engineering solution appeals to common sense, but never that common
> > sense has some ruling authority for an engineering practice. Perhaps if Woz
> > could point to something in engineering textbooks or certification
> > processes that refers to common sense as a firm requirement…..
> >
> > If not, it’s probably just smoke.
> In Spanish, Ingeniero comes from ingenio: saber, inteligencia, agudeza, talento.
>
> In English: wit, ingenuity, inventiveness, discovery, insight, talent, practicality, etc.
>
So, how come an utter cretin like you got an engineering degree? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.

<snip>

No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that physicists are arrogant assholes that got
the job by "connections", and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the chairman disagree.

After all, in a big company (specially involved in MIC), that chairman is also chairman of one more dozen companies,
and establishment connections FORCE him to follow "rules of thumb": 1 physicist per 10 engineers.

Hey, physicists have rights too. If not, where and how would them get a job?

Parasites. Always were and always will be, until such career be terminated for being useless.

1 engineer + 1 computer >> 20 physicists (and wait for AI).

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 19:24:09 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/15/2021 4:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 08:54:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Which is what engineers do. They take science and make cool things from it.
> >
> > Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks built, with 9,192,631,770
> > as required by your moronic science, or with 9,192,631,774=1/24*60*60 of a day,
> > as required by common sense?
> Because engineers use the science of Einstein's GR

Because engineers fuck your idiot gurus imagining they're
captains of this transatlantic and screaming that we're FORCED,
stupid Mike.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 19:41:11 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> Not anymore, stupid Mike. How are GPS clocks built, with 9,192,631,770
> >> as required by your moronic science, or with 9,192,631,774=1/24*60*60 of a day,
> >> as required by common sense?
> I have to admit, I’m intrigued by this phrase “as required by common
> sense”. I wasn’t aware that common sense is a REQUIREMENT for anything from
> an engineering perspective.

You're an idiot, Odd. How would it happen that you would be
aware of anything important?

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 22:34:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Common sense is the process of the human mind generating rules for natural
> behavior based on common experience

Like dealing with some religious fanatics of an insane cult.
That's why Giant Guru had to cast horrible taboos on it.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
>
> <snip>
>
> No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
> physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> the job by "connections",

Ah, first hand exposure. So that would be physicists in private enterprise.
Not those in academia or in fundamental research labs.

This is the familiar territory of physicists getting some special role in
the commercial sector, and engineers bitching about why they aren’t offered
the position. “There’s nothing that guy can do that I can’t do. Why does he
get the job?” Outrage-fueled ranting from a personal context, an engineer
feeling put out and taking it out on physicists as a whole.

Good grief, now it all becomes clear. You’re a whining baby, still angry
even AFTER retirement about some lack of promotion or notoriety that you
felt you deserved. And so here’s how you’re going to spend your retirement,
embittered and ranting.

You’re no better than Robert Winn, a welder who lost a logging job in
Montana because of environmental impact, which he blames scientists for,
and now he says scientists are the source of all evil in the world. Without
them, he says, there’d be no atomic bombs and he’d still have a logging
job.

So. Damn. Predictable.

> and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
> their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the chairman disagree.
>
> After all, in a big company (specially involved in MIC), that chairman is
> also chairman of one more dozen companies,
> and establishment connections FORCE him to follow "rules of thumb": 1
> physicist per 10 engineers.
>
> Hey, physicists have rights too. If not, where and how would them get a job?
>
> Parasites. Always were and always will be, until such career be
> terminated for being useless.
>
> 1 engineer + 1 computer >> 20 physicists (and wait for AI).
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 14:39:54 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
> > physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> > the job by "connections",
> Ah, first hand exposure. So that would be physicists in private enterprise.
> Not those in academia or in fundamental research labs.
>
> This is the familiar territory of physicists getting some special role in
> the commercial sector, and engineers bitching about why they aren’t offered
> the position. “There’s nothing that guy can do that I can’t do. Why does he
> get the job?”

Poor idiot Odd knows how things are in the commercial sector. Poor idiot
Odd is an incredibly wise woodworker, he knows about just everything.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 14:39:54 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
>>> physicists are arrogant assholes that got
>>> the job by "connections",
>> Ah, first hand exposure. So that would be physicists in private enterprise.
>> Not those in academia or in fundamental research labs.
>>
>> This is the familiar territory of physicists getting some special role in
>> the commercial sector, and engineers bitching about why they aren’t offered
>> the position. “There’s nothing that guy can do that I can’t do. Why does he
>> get the job?”
>
> Poor idiot Odd knows how things are in the commercial sector. Poor idiot
> Odd is an incredibly wise woodworker, he knows about just everything.
>

I worked in the commercial sector as a mathematician. I am familiar with
this kind of “who the hell are you and why do you get that position”
hostility. It was one of the factors that made me decide to go into
business for myself. You and Richard can sit in the stew you make.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:39:54 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
> > physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> > the job by "connections",
> Ah, first hand exposure. So that would be physicists in private enterprise.
> Not those in academia or in fundamental research labs.
>
> This is the familiar territory of physicists getting some special role in
> the commercial sector, and engineers bitching about why they aren’t offered
> the position. “There’s nothing that guy can do that I can’t do. Why does he
> get the job?” Outrage-fueled ranting from a personal context, an engineer
> feeling put out and taking it out on physicists as a whole.
>
> Good grief, now it all becomes clear. You’re a whining baby, still angry
> even AFTER retirement about some lack of promotion or notoriety that you
> felt you deserved. And so here’s how you’re going to spend your retirement,
> embittered and ranting.
>
> You’re no better than Robert Winn, a welder who lost a logging job in
> Montana because of environmental impact, which he blames scientists for,
> and now he says scientists are the source of all evil in the world. Without
> them, he says, there’d be no atomic bombs and he’d still have a logging
> job.
>
> So. Damn. Predictable.
> > and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
> > their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the chairman disagree.
> >
> > After all, in a big company (specially involved in MIC), that chairman is
> > also chairman of one more dozen companies,
> > and establishment connections FORCE him to follow "rules of thumb": 1
> > physicist per 10 engineers.
> >
> > Hey, physicists have rights too. If not, where and how would them get a job?
> >
> > Parasites. Always were and always will be, until such career be
> > terminated for being useless.
> >
> > 1 engineer + 1 computer >> 20 physicists (and wait for AI).
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Idiot. I peaked with a job that can't became public, because was under strict censorship to publish anything.

It's like Raytheon or Hughes employees publishing papers on their works.

I worked with physicists under my management, and we invested a lot of efforts in not "killing them" and
retraining their fucking brains, so they could deliver.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:39:54 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
>>> physicists are arrogant assholes that got
>>> the job by "connections",
>> Ah, first hand exposure. So that would be physicists in private enterprise.
>> Not those in academia or in fundamental research labs.
>>
>> This is the familiar territory of physicists getting some special role in
>> the commercial sector, and engineers bitching about why they aren’t offered
>> the position. “There’s nothing that guy can do that I can’t do. Why does he
>> get the job?” Outrage-fueled ranting from a personal context, an engineer
>> feeling put out and taking it out on physicists as a whole.
>>
>> Good grief, now it all becomes clear. You’re a whining baby, still angry
>> even AFTER retirement about some lack of promotion or notoriety that you
>> felt you deserved. And so here’s how you’re going to spend your retirement,
>> embittered and ranting.
>>
>> You’re no better than Robert Winn, a welder who lost a logging job in
>> Montana because of environmental impact, which he blames scientists for,
>> and now he says scientists are the source of all evil in the world. Without
>> them, he says, there’d be no atomic bombs and he’d still have a logging
>> job.
>>
>> So. Damn. Predictable.
>>> and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
>>> their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the
>>> chairman disagree.
>>>
>>> After all, in a big company (specially involved in MIC), that chairman is
>>> also chairman of one more dozen companies,
>>> and establishment connections FORCE him to follow "rules of thumb": 1
>>> physicist per 10 engineers.
>>>
>>> Hey, physicists have rights too. If not, where and how would them get a job?
>>>
>>> Parasites. Always were and always will be, until such career be
>>> terminated for being useless.
>>>
>>> 1 engineer + 1 computer >> 20 physicists (and wait for AI).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Idiot. I peaked with a job that can't became public, because was under
> strict censorship to publish anything.

Of course. And so it surprises you when physicists who CAN publish get
biographies written about them and sold in Barnes & Noble? Stop whining,
you knew what you were getting into.

>
> It's like Raytheon or Hughes employees publishing papers on their works.
>
> I worked with physicists under my management, and we invested a lot of
> efforts in not "killing them" and
> retraining their fucking brains, so they could deliver.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables