On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:17:38 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Must *really* suck to be you, obsessing over Einstein all the time.

Moroney: I don't have dreams where I'm parading carrying the rainbow flag PROUDLY, as you do have for the last decade.
Every night. And probably mounting an unicorn.

Have you chosen your gender by now? Didn't your buddies at your gay bar advised what to do yet?

Or you keep insisting into trying every gender combination, experimentally, until you make a choice?

That's what guides your life. How come do you pretend to have a word on obsessions, technician?

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz ate shit:
> Ask help to Dono. He likes to feed me SHIT.

Open wide, odious kapo. Now swallow. Good boy, Dick.

On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 19:17:38 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 10:29 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:34:30 AM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
> > And, by the way, NOT A SINGLE TIME the fucking Length Contraction was proven experimentally, because it's IMPOSSIBLE, fucking asshole.
> >
> > And IF Length Contraction metaphysics IS NOT TRUE, its companion Time Dilation (derived simultaneously in two pages on the
> > 1905 paper) IS NOT TRUE ALSO!
> Let's look at that from the other direction.
>
> We *know* that time dilation is real, from any number of experiments.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane Shit TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/2022 10:29 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:34:30 AM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
> > And, by the way, NOT A SINGLE TIME the fucking Length Contraction was
> > proven experimentally, because it's IMPOSSIBLE, fucking asshole.
> >
> > And IF Length Contraction metaphysics IS NOT TRUE, its companion Time
> > Dilation (derived simultaneously in two pages on the 1905 paper) IS NOT
> > TRUE ALSO!
>
> Let's look at that from the other direction.
>
> We *know* that time dilation is real, from any number of experiments.
> The best known one is the ability for atmospheric muons to reach the
> ground at sea level.
>
> Since time dilation physics is known to be true, its companion length
> contraction, derived simultaneously in 1905, must also be true!

There is a nice explanation by George Gamow,
in one of the Mr Tompkins stories,

Jan

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I think ...

Its a start. But you're thinking is not straight, it is not coherent, Even if you believe it is. That's why you should consult.

> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.

Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.

Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem? Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an efficient way for you to better yourself.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
>
> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem? Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an efficient way for you to better yourself.

Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:

1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a pure mathematical development could have physical
meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
which is clearly ridiculous.

Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth, under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!

The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.

2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.
Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.

3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).

4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
LGTBQ support).

5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50 Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.

More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.

And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.

6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,
at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).

7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.

No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics, in particular during the last 15 years.

GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!

So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting increasingly away from reason.

Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.

8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.

END (for now).

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:

<Cries SNIPPED>

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:12:05 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
> <Cries SNIPPED>

I find it hard to accept that Dono is right, at least on his position calling you a fucking imbecile. A decade long drooling imbecile.

How did he call you, with your real name? I forgot.

And you published shit, didn't you? I tend to not paying attention to assholes here, not to remember squat about them.

Stephane Baune, maybe? A canadian cretin? Not sure.

On 4/27/2022 1:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:17:38 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Must *really* suck to be you, obsessing over Einstein all the time.
>
> Moroney: I don't have dreams where I'm parading carrying the rainbow flag PROUDLY, as you do have for the last decade.
> Every night. And probably mounting an unicorn.
>
> Have you chosen your gender by now? Didn't your buddies at your gay bar advised what to do yet?
>
> Or you keep insisting into trying every gender combination, experimentally, until you make a choice?
>
> That's what guides your life. How come do you pretend to have a word on obsessions, technician?
>

As they say, insults are the last refuge when one has no more arguments.

These are elementary school level insults anyway, just accuse your
opponent of being gay and therefore abnormal. For the record, my gender
is the one I was born with, male.

You, on the other hand, do have a fixation on Einstein. From your posts,
you hate him, irrationally so, although he never did anything to harm
you. It is my opinion you should seek professional help for this
problem, and I do think it is a problem (obsession) for you whether
you'll admit it or not. I am not a professional myself, so all I have
are my opinions. But my #1 opinion is to just seek help.

On 4/27/2022 1:20 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:41:10 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 8:44:32 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> 110 years of stupid coffee talks, endless stories and imaginary tests ended in NOTHING.
>> You are either lying or very confused. Many tests have been performed, hence they are not imaginary. Those test had results, hence did not end in nothing.
>
>>> - Length contraction is temporal, and ceases if motion stops.
>> Just as time Dale she seizes when motion stops.
>
>>> - Time dilation, instead, is permanent no matter what.
>> No it is not. You are very confused.
>> When the clock stops moving, it's rate is the same as the "stationary" clock.
>
> Absolutely INCORRECT. Einstein clearly wrote: "TIME IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS". Then, what the clock shows
> as TIME can't be modified by itself just because the rate of ticks changed. The clock has MEMORY, either being a mechanical
> or electronic clock.

The clock is like an odometer of time instead of distance. Just as two
different cars taking two different routes to a destination can have
different distances for the route on the odometers, two different
travelers can take two different paths through spacetime and arrive at
the destination with different ages (time passed on a stopwatch).
Conversely, high speed causes one to see the other's length to be
contracted and tick rate slowed, but both effects cease when the
relative motion ceases. Length contraction/time dilation are equivalent.

>
>> When one talks about time dilation, be sure you are referring to its rates.
>> So when the ruler are the clock moves, they are 'contracted'. Once they are no longer moving, they are not 'contracted'.
>
>>> You can't shrink biological entities, except in movies.
>> Maybe you can't, but we can. Don't force your limitations onto others.
>
> LIAR! If you shrink a living biological entity, you KILL IT!

But at a high speed, the living biological entity is stationary in its
own frame, it doesn't experience any shrinkage. Conversely, it sees the
rest of the universe as having shrunk.

(the ACCELERATION needed to reach such speeds in a reasonable time is a
different story. Too much acceleration will kill. At 10 g, a 200lb man
experiences a force of 1 ton, for example)
>
> What are you? A murderer, besides a liar?
>
> <snip snip>

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:43:17 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 1:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:17:38 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Must *really* suck to be you, obsessing over Einstein all the time.
> >
> > Moroney: I don't have dreams where I'm parading carrying the rainbow flag PROUDLY, as you do have for the last decade.
> > Every night. And probably mounting an unicorn.
> >
> > Have you chosen your gender by now? Didn't your buddies at your gay bar advised what to do yet?
> >
> > Or you keep insisting into trying every gender combination, experimentally, until you make a choice?
> >
> > That's what guides your life. How come do you pretend to have a word on obsessions, technician?
> >
> As they say, insults are the last refuge when one has no more arguments.
>
> These are elementary school level insults anyway, just accuse your
> opponent of being gay and therefore abnormal. For the record, my gender
> is the one I was born with, male.
>
> You, on the other hand, do have a fixation on Einstein. From your posts,
> you hate him, irrationally so, although he never did anything to harm
> you. It is my opinion you should seek professional help for this
> problem, and I do think it is a problem (obsession) for you whether
> you'll admit it or not. I am not a professional myself, so all I have
> are my opinions. But my #1 opinion is to just seek help.

I have endless amount of arguments. I could write a fucking book just by editing relevant posts of mine in the last year.

But I find it much more entertaining to mock and troll imbeciles (and gays like you, Moroney).

Regarding Einstein, I dispise the undeserved hype around the cretin, for 100 years.

But, as Heaviside said, Einstein is a cretin but he can't control einsteinichs, which are really fanatics. It's not Einstein's fault (1912).

And Heaviside knew. After all, he derived SR and E:mc2 years before the cretin, and threw away all his work because he believed
it was PURE CRAP. Same thing happened with Larmor, JJ Thomson, Rutherford....

Hey, all of them anglo-saxons. Did they know relativity was a shitty thing years before the cretin?

P.S.: writing this, I saw your last post. Still gayish.

Dono. wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:45:54 PM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz ate some more shit:
>
> > I don't confuse shit!
>
> You get to eat it, Dick. Every time you open your mouth.

You have to watch out Dono who you go after...

Richard Hertz has a German aggresive mentality (according to eistein's
study of german people's mentality).

Albert Einstein believed that the Germans will repeat history.

If you keep going after Richard Hertz the way you do you
might have to suffer the consequencies.

You could lose your job.

For example, Richard might contact your employer and tell him that you
are using
your employer's companies computers to harass people online.
Your employer will find that very troubling and could be fatal to your
employers company. He would fire you on the spot. No second chances.
Your employer would consider that...unacceptable.

From now on you're on your own. You've been warned.

If I see you harassing anyone here after today, ...you're suicidal.

Kaput.

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

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 01:43:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 1:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:17:38 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Must *really* suck to be you, obsessing over Einstein all the time.
> >
> > Moroney: I don't have dreams where I'm parading carrying the rainbow flag PROUDLY, as you do have for the last decade.
> > Every night. And probably mounting an unicorn.
> >
> > Have you chosen your gender by now? Didn't your buddies at your gay bar advised what to do yet?
> >
> > Or you keep insisting into trying every gender combination, experimentally, until you make a choice?
> >
> > That's what guides your life. How come do you pretend to have a word on obsessions, technician?
> >
> As they say, insults are the last refuge when one has no more arguments.

And stupid Mike is a perfect example, together with the
most of his fellow idiots.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
>> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
>>
>> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
>> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
>> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
>> efficient way for you to better yourself.
>
>
> Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
>
> 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
> pure mathematical development could have physical
> meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
> concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
> which is clearly ridiculous.

It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.
Congratulations on your cranial concreting.

I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects
metaphysics. If you’re going to fling propaganda labels, please make sure
you know what those labels mean.

>
> Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth,
> under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!
>
> The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean
> universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.

SR has no requirements of void or infinitude and makes no claims on the
universe. The application of SR only has to be relevant to the LOCAL
environment. Is the LOCAL environment SUFFICIENTLY Euclidean to not
introduce errors above experimental resolution? Is the gravitational effect
of local matter SUFFICIENTLY small to not introduce errors about
experimental resolution?

How is it that an engineer does not know this? Gone to rust upstairs?

>
> 2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated
> the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.

First of all, you use the word “proven” in science, which is a sign of
scientific incompetence.

Secondly, length contraction HAS BEEN experimentally demonstrated, as has
been discussed here several times.

> Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such
> derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.
>
> 3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through
> heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
> concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven
> FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).

While true, being “proven FALSE” is not the same as “not proven TRUE”. You
should know that too.

>
> 4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME
> IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
> merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can
> support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
> below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his
> "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
> LGTBQ support).
>
> 5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50
> Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
> will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity
> value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.

Practical value to humanity has absolutely zero relevance to fundamental
science. This still seems to elude you.

>
> More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one
> second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
> activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity
> USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
> any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.
>
> And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be
> considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.
>
> 6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the
> average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,

You are well behind the times. Rutherford did scattering experiments that
showed the size of the nucleus is five orders of magnitude smaller than the
atom over a century ago. You also seem to have missed the whole business of
deep inelastic scattering on protons in the 1960s.

Just because it is not stuff you have used in your profession does not mean
that it is unknown ground. Don’t be an ass.

> at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics
> than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
> should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT
> STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
> which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).
>
> 7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff
> equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
> Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that
> cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.

Again, practical human value has nothing to do with fundamental science.
When you can absorb this, you’ll start getting some insight. Reject it, and
you’ll die angry.

>
> No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of
> them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
> and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics,
> in particular during the last 15 years.
>
> GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another
> stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
> in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever
> changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
> requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!
>
> So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it
> happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
> try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting
> increasingly away from reason.
>
> Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational
> Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.
>
> 8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their
> brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.

Fundamental science does make a real contribution to humanity. Not all
contributions to humanity have to do with technology.

>
> END (for now).
>
>

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

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:01:43 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Dono. wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:45:54 PM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz ate some more shit:
> >
> > > I don't confuse shit!
> >
> > You get to eat it, Dick. Every time you open your mouth.
> You have to watch out Dono who you go after...
>
> Richard Hertz has a German aggresive mentality (according to eistein's
> study of german people's mentality).
>

I get the Dick odious kapo (he's Jewish, not German) to swallow shit every time he opens his mouth. This is fun.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:22:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
> >> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
> >>
> >> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
> >> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
> >> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
> >> efficient way for you to better yourself.
> >
> >
> > Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
> >
> > 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
> > pure mathematical development could have physical
> > meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
> > concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
> > which is clearly ridiculous.
> It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
> what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.
> Congratulations on your cranial concreting.
>
> I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects
> metaphysics. If you’re going to fling propaganda labels, please make sure
> you know what those labels mean.
> >
> > Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth,
> > under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!
> >
> > The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean
> > universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.
> SR has no requirements of void or infinitude and makes no claims on the
> universe. The application of SR only has to be relevant to the LOCAL
> environment. Is the LOCAL environment SUFFICIENTLY Euclidean to not
> introduce errors above experimental resolution? Is the gravitational effect
> of local matter SUFFICIENTLY small to not introduce errors about
> experimental resolution?
>
> How is it that an engineer does not know this? Gone to rust upstairs?
> >
> > 2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated
> > the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.
> First of all, you use the word “proven” in science, which is a sign of
> scientific incompetence.
>
> Secondly, length contraction HAS BEEN experimentally demonstrated, as has
> been discussed here several times.
> > Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such
> > derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.
> >
> > 3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through
> > heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
> > concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven
> > FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).
> While true, being “proven FALSE” is not the same as “not proven TRUE”. You
> should know that too.
> >
> > 4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME
> > IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
> > merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can
> > support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
> > below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his
> > "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
> > LGTBQ support).
> >
> > 5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50
> > Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
> > will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity
> > value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.
> Practical value to humanity has absolutely zero relevance to fundamental
> science. This still seems to elude you.
> >
> > More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one
> > second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
> > activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity
> > USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
> > any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.
> >
> > And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be
> > considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.
> >
> > 6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the
> > average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,
> You are well behind the times. Rutherford did scattering experiments that
> showed the size of the nucleus is five orders of magnitude smaller than the
> atom over a century ago. You also seem to have missed the whole business of
> deep inelastic scattering on protons in the 1960s.
>
> Just because it is not stuff you have used in your profession does not mean
> that it is unknown ground. Don’t be an ass.
> > at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics
> > than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
> > should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT
> > STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
> > which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).
> >
> > 7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff
> > equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
> > Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that
> > cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.
> Again, practical human value has nothing to do with fundamental science.
> When you can absorb this, you’ll start getting some insight. Reject it, and
> you’ll die angry.
> >
> > No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of
> > them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
> > and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics,
> > in particular during the last 15 years.
> >
> > GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another
> > stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
> > in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever
> > changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
> > requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!
> >
> > So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it
> > happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
> > try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting
> > increasingly away from reason.
> >
> > Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational
> > Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.
> >
> > 8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their
> > brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.
> Fundamental science does make a real contribution to humanity. Not all
> contributions to humanity have to do with technology.
>
> >
> > END (for now).
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

List (and think very carefully) FIVE specific researches in fundamental sciences (any kind) NOT RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY, either:

a) Being technology an enabler for such specific research, or
b) besides a), being technological applications the final goal of such specific research, or
c) being technology the main goal behind such "fundamental" research, how is fundamental research results being retrofitted
into the path of development of technology.

If you like, you could make a try with Solid State Physics.

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 17:22:35 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
> >> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
> >>
> >> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
> >> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
> >> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
> >> efficient way for you to better yourself.
> >
> >
> > Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
> >
> > 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
> > pure mathematical development could have physical
> > meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
> > concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
> > which is clearly ridiculous.
> It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
> what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.

As if you believed something else, poor halfbrain.

> Congratulations on your cranial concreting.
>
> I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects

Odd, poor idiot, your Shit is not about any real, measurable
effect. It's about THE BEST WAY we are FORCED to.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:22:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
>>>> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
>>>>
>>>> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
>>>> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
>>>> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
>>>> efficient way for you to better yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
>>>
>>> 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
>>> pure mathematical development could have physical
>>> meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
>>> concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
>>> which is clearly ridiculous.
>> It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
>> what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.
>> Congratulations on your cranial concreting.
>>
>> I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects
>> metaphysics. If you’re going to fling propaganda labels, please make sure
>> you know what those labels mean.
>>>
>>> Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth,
>>> under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!
>>>
>>> The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean
>>> universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.
>> SR has no requirements of void or infinitude and makes no claims on the
>> universe. The application of SR only has to be relevant to the LOCAL
>> environment. Is the LOCAL environment SUFFICIENTLY Euclidean to not
>> introduce errors above experimental resolution? Is the gravitational effect
>> of local matter SUFFICIENTLY small to not introduce errors about
>> experimental resolution?
>>
>> How is it that an engineer does not know this? Gone to rust upstairs?
>>>
>>> 2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated
>>> the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.
>> First of all, you use the word “proven” in science, which is a sign of
>> scientific incompetence.
>>
>> Secondly, length contraction HAS BEEN experimentally demonstrated, as has
>> been discussed here several times.
>>> Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such
>>> derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.
>>>
>>> 3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through
>>> heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
>>> concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven
>>> FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).
>> While true, being “proven FALSE” is not the same as “not proven TRUE”. You
>> should know that too.
>>>
>>> 4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME
>>> IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
>>> merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can
>>> support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
>>> below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his
>>> "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
>>> LGTBQ support).
>>>
>>> 5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50
>>> Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
>>> will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity
>>> value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.
>> Practical value to humanity has absolutely zero relevance to fundamental
>> science. This still seems to elude you.
>>>
>>> More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one
>>> second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
>>> activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity
>>> USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
>>> any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.
>>>
>>> And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be
>>> considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.
>>>
>>> 6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the
>>> average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,
>> You are well behind the times. Rutherford did scattering experiments that
>> showed the size of the nucleus is five orders of magnitude smaller than the
>> atom over a century ago. You also seem to have missed the whole business of
>> deep inelastic scattering on protons in the 1960s.
>>
>> Just because it is not stuff you have used in your profession does not mean
>> that it is unknown ground. Don’t be an ass.
>>> at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics
>>> than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
>>> should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT
>>> STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
>>> which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).
>>>
>>> 7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff
>>> equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
>>> Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that
>>> cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.
>> Again, practical human value has nothing to do with fundamental science.
>> When you can absorb this, you’ll start getting some insight. Reject it, and
>> you’ll die angry.
>>>
>>> No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of
>>> them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
>>> and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics,
>>> in particular during the last 15 years.
>>>
>>> GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another
>>> stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
>>> in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever
>>> changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
>>> requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!
>>>
>>> So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it
>>> happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
>>> try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting
>>> increasingly away from reason.
>>>
>>> Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational
>>> Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.
>>>
>>> 8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their
>>> brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.
>> Fundamental science does make a real contribution to humanity. Not all
>> contributions to humanity have to do with technology.
>>
>>>
>>> END (for now).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> List (and think very carefully) FIVE specific researches in fundamental
> sciences (any kind) NOT RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY, either:
>
> a) Being technology an enabler for such specific research, or
> b) besides a), being technological applications the final goal of such
> specific research, or
> c) being technology the main goal behind such
> "fundamental" research, how is fundamental research results being retrofitted
> into the path of development of technology.
>
> If you like, you could make a try with Solid State Physics.
>

I’ll repeat what I told you earlier, and which you are unable to absorb.
Technology is used in fundamental science and fundamental science is used
in technology. This does not mean that the VALUE OF fundamental science is
to further technology. Likewise, mathematics is used in both technology and
in science. This does not mean that EITHER science or technology is there
to further mathematics.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:22:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
> >>>> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
> >>>> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
> >>>> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
> >>>> efficient way for you to better yourself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
> >>> pure mathematical development could have physical
> >>> meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
> >>> concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
> >>> which is clearly ridiculous.
> >> It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
> >> what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.
> >> Congratulations on your cranial concreting.
> >>
> >> I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects
> >> metaphysics. If you’re going to fling propaganda labels, please make sure
> >> you know what those labels mean.
> >>>
> >>> Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth,
> >>> under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!
> >>>
> >>> The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean
> >>> universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.
> >> SR has no requirements of void or infinitude and makes no claims on the
> >> universe. The application of SR only has to be relevant to the LOCAL
> >> environment. Is the LOCAL environment SUFFICIENTLY Euclidean to not
> >> introduce errors above experimental resolution? Is the gravitational effect
> >> of local matter SUFFICIENTLY small to not introduce errors about
> >> experimental resolution?
> >>
> >> How is it that an engineer does not know this? Gone to rust upstairs?
> >>>
> >>> 2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated
> >>> the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.
> >> First of all, you use the word “proven” in science, which is a sign of
> >> scientific incompetence.
> >>
> >> Secondly, length contraction HAS BEEN experimentally demonstrated, as has
> >> been discussed here several times.
> >>> Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such
> >>> derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.
> >>>
> >>> 3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through
> >>> heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
> >>> concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven
> >>> FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).
> >> While true, being “proven FALSE” is not the same as “not proven TRUE”. You
> >> should know that too.
> >>>
> >>> 4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME
> >>> IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
> >>> merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can
> >>> support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
> >>> below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his
> >>> "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
> >>> LGTBQ support).
> >>>
> >>> 5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50
> >>> Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
> >>> will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity
> >>> value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.
> >> Practical value to humanity has absolutely zero relevance to fundamental
> >> science. This still seems to elude you.
> >>>
> >>> More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one
> >>> second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
> >>> activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity
> >>> USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
> >>> any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.
> >>>
> >>> And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be
> >>> considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.
> >>>
> >>> 6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the
> >>> average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,
> >> You are well behind the times. Rutherford did scattering experiments that
> >> showed the size of the nucleus is five orders of magnitude smaller than the
> >> atom over a century ago. You also seem to have missed the whole business of
> >> deep inelastic scattering on protons in the 1960s.
> >>
> >> Just because it is not stuff you have used in your profession does not mean
> >> that it is unknown ground. Don’t be an ass.
> >>> at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics
> >>> than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
> >>> should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT
> >>> STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
> >>> which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).
> >>>
> >>> 7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff
> >>> equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
> >>> Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that
> >>> cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.
> >> Again, practical human value has nothing to do with fundamental science.
> >> When you can absorb this, you’ll start getting some insight. Reject it, and
> >> you’ll die angry.
> >>>
> >>> No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of
> >>> them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
> >>> and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics,
> >>> in particular during the last 15 years.
> >>>
> >>> GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another
> >>> stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
> >>> in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever
> >>> changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
> >>> requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!
> >>>
> >>> So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it
> >>> happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
> >>> try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting
> >>> increasingly away from reason.
> >>>
> >>> Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational
> >>> Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.
> >>>
> >>> 8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their
> >>> brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.
> >> Fundamental science does make a real contribution to humanity. Not all
> >> contributions to humanity have to do with technology.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> END (for now).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> > List (and think very carefully) FIVE specific researches in fundamental
> > sciences (any kind) NOT RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY, either:
> >
> > a) Being technology an enabler for such specific research, or
> > b) besides a), being technological applications the final goal of such
> > specific research, or
> > c) being technology the main goal behind such
> > "fundamental" research, how is fundamental research results being retrofitted
> > into the path of development of technology.
> >
> > If you like, you could make a try with Solid State Physics.
> >
> I’ll repeat what I told you earlier, and which you are unable to absorb.
> Technology is used in fundamental science and fundamental science is used
> in technology. This does not mean that the VALUE OF fundamental science is
> to further technology. Likewise, mathematics is used in both technology and
> in science. This does not mean that EITHER science or technology is there
> to further mathematics.
>
> Good lord, you’re denser than a five foot stack of National Geographic
> magazines.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dono. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:01:43 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:45:54 PM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz ate some more shit:
> > >
> > > > I don't confuse shit!
> > >
> > > You get to eat it, Dick. Every time you open your mouth.
> > You have to watch out Dono who you go after...
> >
> > Richard Hertz has a German aggresive mentality (according to eistein's
> > study of german people's mentality).
> >
>
> I get the Dick odious kapo (he's Jewish, not German) to swallow shit every time he opens his mouth. This is fun.

Richard is a Kike??? No vey!

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:22:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's that OR you are completely DRUNK or very HIGH on heavy drugs, fucking junkie.
>>>>>> Do not project your faults onto others. That, you can discuss with your therapist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seeing that everybody is against you in this thread, doesn't that show
>>>>>> you that maybe perhaps you are the one who has the severe problem?
>>>>>> Seriously, stop wasting time with me and go consult. That would be an
>>>>>> efficient way for you to better yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me assert some subjects, many of which I've repeated many times:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Both SR and GR are pure metaphysics, with derivations assumed as if a
>>>>> pure mathematical development could have physical
>>>>> meanings, which have been proven false and based on delusional
>>>>> concepts, like working on space void of any matter/energy,
>>>>> which is clearly ridiculous.
>>>> It’s fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit in with
>>>> what you believe to be true is therefore “clearly ridiculous”.
>>>> Congratulations on your cranial concreting.
>>>>
>>>> I also just *adore* the fact that you still call real, measurable effects
>>>> metaphysics. If you’re going to fling propaganda labels, please make sure
>>>> you know what those labels mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet, indoctrinated fanatics INSIST in using relativity on Earth,
>>>>> under gravitational pull, and even under WATER!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The formulation of SR is for a void, infinite and euclidean
>>>>> universe. Yet, it's applied to cosmic muons and particles at the LHC.
>>>> SR has no requirements of void or infinitude and makes no claims on the
>>>> universe. The application of SR only has to be relevant to the LOCAL
>>>> environment. Is the LOCAL environment SUFFICIENTLY Euclidean to not
>>>> introduce errors above experimental resolution? Is the gravitational effect
>>>> of local matter SUFFICIENTLY small to not introduce errors about
>>>> experimental resolution?
>>>>
>>>> How is it that an engineer does not know this? Gone to rust upstairs?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Not ONCE it has been proven that length contraction, which originated
>>>>> the relativity movement to disprove MMX, is real.
>>>> First of all, you use the word “proven” in science, which is a sign of
>>>> scientific incompetence.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, length contraction HAS BEEN experimentally demonstrated, as has
>>>> been discussed here several times.
>>>>> Even more, formulated before the CONCEPT of what an atom was, such
>>>>> derivation SHOULD BE even more ridicule nowadays.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) As LC and time dilation were derived from a single framework, through
>>>>> heavy mathturbation, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED that both
>>>>> concepts ARE MATHEMATICALLY LINKED, so if one of them is proven
>>>>> FALSE, the other MUST BE FALSE (mandatory consequence).
>>>> While true, being “proven FALSE” is not the same as “not proven TRUE”. You
>>>> should know that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) The stupid assertion written in the 1905 paper by Einstein that TIME
>>>>> IS WHAT MY CLOCK SHOWS should be popularized through
>>>>> merchandising, so retarded imbeciles who support relativity can
>>>>> support it proudly. If possible, adding a Picasso's Melting Clocks
>>>>> below it. After all, Picasso made the paint as an homage to his
>>>>> "friend" Einstein (both pushing 1900s New Age Movements, like
>>>>> LGTBQ support).
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) Given that the maximum speed achieved by man in space is lower than 50
>>>>> Km/sec, and that there are no chances that such record
>>>>> will be brought around 100 Km/sec in the next 400 years, relativity
>>>>> value IS NULL, and Lorentz Transform reduces to Galileo Transforms.
>>>> Practical value to humanity has absolutely zero relevance to fundamental
>>>> science. This still seems to elude you.
>>>>>
>>>>> More yet, and considering that a light beam covers 300,000 Km in one
>>>>> second, such value should be used as A RADIUS of what manned
>>>>> activities can dominate in such time lapse, rendering relativity
>>>>> USELESS for any human purpose. Galilean relativity is quite enough for
>>>>> any space activity in our cosmic neighborhood for centuries to come.
>>>>>
>>>>> And anything farther than 3 Astronomical Units from the Sun should be
>>>>> considered as BEYOND human abilities to define and measure.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) In the same sense, anything below 1 Armstrong (believed to be the
>>>>> average atomic radius) should be declared as uncharted zone,
>>>> You are well behind the times. Rutherford did scattering experiments that
>>>> showed the size of the nucleus is five orders of magnitude smaller than the
>>>> atom over a century ago. You also seem to have missed the whole business of
>>>> deep inelastic scattering on protons in the 1960s.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it is not stuff you have used in your profession does not mean
>>>> that it is unknown ground. Don’t be an ass.
>>>>> at which what happens IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, closer to metaphysics
>>>>> than to physics. Only conquest of chemistry (not physics)
>>>>> should be given SOME VALUE, as it's proven that findings DO NOT
>>>>> STAND THE PASS OF TIME (like the case of molecular chemistry,
>>>>> which fails miserably after 10-15 years in the development of composite materials).
>>>>>
>>>>> 7) GR has been proved USELESS (with all of its 200+ non linear diff
>>>>> equations) beyond the MATHEMATICAL SOLUTION called
>>>>> Hilbert-Schwarzschild since 1917, which is the ONLY solution that
>>>>> cretin relativists use to "explain" how marvelous GPS is.
>>>> Again, practical human value has nothing to do with fundamental science.
>>>> When you can absorb this, you’ll start getting some insight. Reject it, and
>>>> you’ll die angry.
>>>>>
>>>>> No other solution has been proven to have any value (all THREE of
>>>>> them), and yet relativists have written million of pages praising them,
>>>>> and filmed ten of thousand of hours SELLING this crappy metaphysics,
>>>>> in particular during the last 15 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> GR FAILED MISERABLY at every attempt to use it in cosmology (another
>>>>> stupid movement), so it has suffered hundred of patches
>>>>> in the last 60 years, in the lame attempt to interpret an ever
>>>>> changing universe, that now has accelerating expansion, which
>>>>> requires that DARK ENERGY be actually ANTIGRAVITY!!
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as with moral values and decency degrade on a daily basis, so it
>>>>> happens on part of "science" (cosmology, particle physics), which
>>>>> try to redefine previous stances (failed ones) but are drifting
>>>>> increasingly away from reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last try in cosmology is to have A VARIABLE VALUE for Gravitational
>>>>> Constant G, in order to use an aggiornated GR.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8) Relativists should cease and desist, and use what is left of their
>>>>> brainpower to make REAL CONTRIBUTIONS to society, parasites.
>>>> Fundamental science does make a real contribution to humanity. Not all
>>>> contributions to humanity have to do with technology.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> END (for now).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>> List (and think very carefully) FIVE specific researches in fundamental
>>> sciences (any kind) NOT RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY, either:
>>>
>>> a) Being technology an enabler for such specific research, or
>>> b) besides a), being technological applications the final goal of such
>>> specific research, or
>>> c) being technology the main goal behind such
>>> "fundamental" research, how is fundamental research results being retrofitted
>>> into the path of development of technology.
>>>
>>> If you like, you could make a try with Solid State Physics.
>>>
>> I’ll repeat what I told you earlier, and which you are unable to absorb.
>> Technology is used in fundamental science and fundamental science is used
>> in technology. This does not mean that the VALUE OF fundamental science is
>> to further technology. Likewise, mathematics is used in both technology and
>> in science. This does not mean that EITHER science or technology is there
>> to further mathematics.
>>
>> Good lord, you’re denser than a five foot stack of National Geographic
>> magazines.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> You DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE about what fundamental science is.
>
> You run away like A RAT when I challenged you to cite five examples of
> "fundamental science".

On 4/26/22 7:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [...]

["reversible" is the wrong word, but I think I know what
you mean.]

"length contraction" and "time dilation" both go to zero when the
relative velocity between object and observer/frame goes to zero.

"Length contraction" is the difference in length measured by an
observer/frame co-moving with a ruler and the length measured by an
observer/frame relative to which the ruler is moving (along its length).

"Time dilation" is the difference in tick interval of a clock measured
by an observer/frame co-moving with the clock and its tick interval
measured by an observer/frame relative to which the clock is moving.

You are apparently confusing elapsed proper time with "time dilation".
Yes, the elapsed proper time of a clock is always monotonically
increasing and never stops.

Here's a rather loose analogy: in your car, the speedometer
measures a quantity analogous to "time dilation", while
the odometer measures a quantity analogous to elapsed
proper time.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 7:29:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:34:30 AM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:45:54 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Relativity is very confusing
> >
> > For dumb people, yes it is.
> > > Maybe because is a fucking, worthless METAPHYSICS!
> > You do not know what the word 'metaphysics' means, nor how to apply it correctly in a sentence.
> > You are very confused. You should seek medical help.
> > Take a long break from this group and consult.
> METAPHYSICS: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being,
> knowing, identity, time, and space.
> EXAMPLE: "they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion"
>
> See, imbecile? Not do difficult to understand. And this is just the first definition of metaphysics that I've found googling it.

You missed the phrase "branch of philosophy".

Relativity is a branch of physics. The fact that it deals with certain first
principles does not make it into philosophy (relativity uses experimental
results as the criterion of validity).

I suggest you see a doctor, you suffer from a monomania.

--
Jan

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 20:07:30 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> "Time dilation" is the difference in tick interval of a clock measured
> by an observer/frame co-moving with the clock and its tick interval
> measured by an observer/frame relative to which the clock is moving.

And, as anyone can check at GPS, it doesn't exist.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 20:30:11 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> Relativity is a branch of physics. The fact that it deals with certain first
> principles does not make it into philosophy (relativity uses experimental
> results as the criterion of validity).

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane Shit TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.