On 2022-06-04 06:01:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko:
>
>>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were
>>>>> justified by my own errors (???)
>>>>
>>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the
>>>> message
>>>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone considered to
>>>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious
>>>> you
>>>> may ask.
>>>
>>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName.
>>
>> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote
>> and how it was responded.
>
> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.

As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from.
Only the first insult is important.

Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main
motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in
different behaviour.

Mikko

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.
>
But you ARE a nazi (piece of shit). You are motivated by rabid racism.

On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 05:14:53 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.
> >
> But you ARE a nazi (piece of shit). You are motivated by rabid racism.

See, Dono: you ARE a fanatic, lying piece of shit -
but it's still an insult when I write it.

Am 04.06.2022 um 12:24 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-06-04 06:01:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko:
>>
>>>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were
>>>>>> justified by my own errors (???)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the
>>>>> message
>>>>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone
>>>>> considered to
>>>>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious
>>>>> you
>>>>> may ask.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote
>>> and how it was responded.
>>
>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or
>> similar.
>
> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from.
> Only the first insult is important.
>
> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main
> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in
> different behaviour.
>

Motivition is not important at all in science.

Many scientists had very questionable motives, but discovered important
things.

It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important is,
what they do.

So, it would be better to abstract from the reasons, why a certain
scientist had chosen a subject or attempted to solve a certain problem.

It can be interesting, however, for historians in some cases, that try
to estimate afterwards, why someone did something or why some endeavour
was succesfull.

But that is not really a scientific question and it is better to simply
ignore it in the scientifc realm.

Lets take Newton, for instance. Now, how do you connect his theory of
gravity or his book 'principia' to his favor for alchemy and black magic?

Or how about others like Stephan Hawking. Did it change the value of his
findings, that he sat in a wheelchair?

TH

>

Am 05.06.2022 um 05:14 schrieb Dono.:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.
>>
> But you ARE a nazi (piece of shit). You are motivated by rabid racism.
>

These are two unjustified claims, which were meant to be insults.

In case you want to link me to Naziism, you would need to quote any kind
or political statement by me, which would connect me to right winged
movements.

But that will be most likely not succesfull, as I have been politically
active more at the left side of the political spectrum.

So, you took something out of thin air and meant it as an insult, just
because I dared to criticise Einstein/SRT.

But please notice, that that is not how science works. Science is an
endeavour to discover truth and therefore needs criticque of any
results, even those of Einstein.

TH

On 2022-06-05 06:41:39 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 04.06.2022 um 12:24 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-06-04 06:01:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 03.06.2022 um 11:13 schrieb Mikko:
>>>
>>>>>>> So - apparently - you tried to express, that these insults were
>>>>>>> justified by my own errors (???)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to know the motivation behind the "insults", find the
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> where the first "insult" was and your message that someone
>>>>>> considered to
>>>>>> need what you regard as an "insult". If the motivation is not obvious
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> may ask.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, who is actually behind a certain UserName.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter, it is not important. Just see what you wrote
>>>> and how it was responded.
>>>
>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or
>>> similar.
>>
>> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from.
>> Only the first insult is important.
>>
>> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main
>> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in
>> different behaviour.
>>
>
> Motivition is not important at all in science.

Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.

You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.

> It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important
> is, what they do.

Depends on your purposes. To a large extent it is unimportant what they do
but sometimes somebody does something important. Why they do what they do
is important if you want to change their behaviour. Knowing motivation may
also help to predict their future behaviour.

Relevant to the current case is that if we know that your motivation is
not scientific we may expect that you will never say anything useful
but if it is you may say something useful in the future.

Mikko

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud,
> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power.
>
> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons?

Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and
no "massive amounts of money and power" there.

> I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science
> should work.

Sure. But the root cause is your fantasising. It's not real.

--
Jan

Am 05.06.2022 um 22:07 schrieb JanPB:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud,
>> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power.
>>
>> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons?
>
> Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and
> no "massive amounts of money and power" there.

Well, if I can find four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, than
certainly Planck would have been able, too.

The reason: I'm not even a physicist, let alone a leading expert and a
professor.

But Planck published Einstein's text, hence had known the text prior to
printing it.

To me it is hard to believe, that he would have accepted such a faulty
paper.

But not alone was this crap printed, but was heralded to the world as
pinnacle of all science, which was written by a true genius, who
invented relativity and E=m*c².

Now many criticised this particular article in the years to come.

But he critique was swept under the rug till the present day.

>> I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science
>> should work.
>
> Sure. But the root cause is your fantasising. It's not real.
>

Sure. But if you think that I'm making this all up and there are in fact
no errors in Einstein's text, let alone hundreds, then you should be
able to show at least a few of my four hundred errors.

here are my comments again:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing

TH

Am 05.06.2022 um 11:34 schrieb Mikko:

>>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or
>>>> similar.
>>>
>>> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from.
>>> Only the first insult is important.
>>>
>>> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main
>>> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in
>>> different behaviour.
>>>
>>
>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>
> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.

Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science, than
certainly you should cover this topic.

But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.

Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
tell stories about these.

But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
psychology or history.

> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.

Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not the
participants in a discussion.

To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want, because
we are discussiong a topic in physics.

If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences, believe
or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you at all.

>> It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important
>> is, what they do.
>
> Depends on your purposes. To a large extent it is unimportant what they do
> but sometimes somebody does something important. Why they do what they do
> is important if you want to change their behaviour. Knowing motivation may
> also help to predict their future behaviour.

People are usually too complex to succesfully predict their behaviour.
But in case you like to do something really useless and almost
impossible, than try that.

> Relevant to the current case is that if we know that your motivation is
> not scientific we may expect that you will never say anything useful
> but if it is you may say something useful in the future.
>

Usefulness is not a criterium in physics.

Physics is not engineering and not the science of building machines.

Physics deals with nature itself and tries to uncover, how nature functions.

But we can only find out this behaviour, whether that is useful for us
or not.

TH

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:42:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.06.2022 um 22:07 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud,
> >> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power.
> >>
> >> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons?
> >
> > Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and
> > no "massive amounts of money and power" there.
> Well, if I can find four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, than
> certainly Planck would have been able, too.

But you haven't found any errors there. It's all a fantasy inside your head only.

> The reason: I'm not even a physicist, let alone a leading expert and a
> professor.
>
> But Planck published Einstein's text, hence had known the text prior to
> printing it.
>
> To me it is hard to believe, that he would have accepted such a faulty
> paper.

But the paper is not faulty. It contains no errors and it contains
a very interesting and innovative way of resolving certain problems
that were known to exist within electrodynamics (and its relation
to mechanics). That's why it was accepted. It also demonstrated
that Lorentz's 1904 results could be derived in a simple general way.

> But not alone was this crap printed,

It's not "crap", it's a very good paper.

> but was heralded to the world as
> pinnacle of all science,

Because it is.

> which was written by a true genius,

Because it was.

>who
> invented relativity and E=m*c².

Because he did.

> Now many criticised this particular article in the years to come.
>
> But he critique was swept under the rug till the present day.

There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
At best, such critiques may be debating something.

> >> I actually do not know. But I do know, that this is not how science
> >> should work.
> >
> > Sure. But the root cause is your fantasising. It's not real.
> >
> Sure. But if you think that I'm making this all up and there are in fact
> no errors in Einstein's text,

Yes, this is correct.

>let alone hundreds, then you should be
> able to show at least a few of my four hundred errors.

No, this is impossible. That phenomenon is very well-known. It is impossible
to point out errors to a person who does not understand the subject.

Life on Earth in general would be much easier if such a thing were possible..

--
Jan

On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 09:16:21 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:42:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 05.06.2022 um 22:07 schrieb JanPB:
> > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That could possibly be explained by a large scale scientific fraud,
> > >> which is assisted by massive amounts of money and power.
> > >>
> > >> Now the question is: who is behind this scam and for which reasons?
> > >
> > > Nobody. It's all inside your head. There is no "scientific fraud" and
> > > no "massive amounts of money and power" there.
> > Well, if I can find four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, than
> > certainly Planck would have been able, too.
> But you haven't found any errors there. It's all a fantasy inside your head only.
> > The reason: I'm not even a physicist, let alone a leading expert and a
> > professor.
> >
> > But Planck published Einstein's text, hence had known the text prior to
> > printing it.
> >
> > To me it is hard to believe, that he would have accepted such a faulty
> > paper.
> But the paper is not faulty. It contains no errors and it contains
> a very interesting and innovative way of resolving certain problems

The paper is some insane mumble inconsistent
with basic definitions, up to 1968 (afair) valid also
in your moronic physics.

On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 05.06.2022 um 11:34 schrieb Mikko:
>
>>>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or
>>>>> similar.
>>>>
>>>> As I already said, it doesn't matter where many insults came from.
>>>> Only the first insult is important.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, Dono has observed that your behaviour indicates that your main
>>>> motivation is not scientific. A scientific motivation would result in
>>>> different behaviour.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>
>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>
> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,

It isn't.

> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>
> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.

Or any other people.

> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
> tell stories about these.
>
> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
> psychology or history.

So should be discussed in a better place than here.

>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>
> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
> the participants in a discussion.

You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that then
don't do that again.

> To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want, because
> we are discussiong a topic in physics.

It should be irrelevant anyway although you are not discussion a topic in
physics.

> If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences, believe
> or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you at all.

Most importantly, you should not discuss those other topics here.

>>> It is usually irrelevant, why people do what they do. More important
>>> is, what they do.
>>
>> Depends on your purposes. To a large extent it is unimportant what they do
>> but sometimes somebody does something important. Why they do what they do
>> is important if you want to change their behaviour. Knowing motivation may
>> also help to predict their future behaviour.
>
> People are usually too complex to succesfully predict their behaviour.
> But in case you like to do something really useless and almost
> impossible, than try that.

That varies. Total prediction is impossible but certain aspects of
behaviour are fairly predictable.

>> Relevant to the current case is that if we know that your motivation is
>> not scientific we may expect that you will never say anything useful
>> but if it is you may say something useful in the future.
>
> Usefulness is not a criterium in physics.

People read what they expect to be useful for their purposes. Some
people want to learn, some show that they can irritate other people,
some something else.

That you participate in some discussion and not others shows what you
consider most useful for your purposes. From that others may estimate
what your purposes are.

Mikko

On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 10:07:04 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:

> That you participate in some discussion and not others shows what you
> consider most useful for your purposes. From that others may estimate
> what your purposes are.

For you, for instance - it is supporting your brainwashing
religion by any means possible.

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:48:28 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.06.2022 um 05:14 schrieb Dono.:
> > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.
> >>
> > But you ARE a nazi (piece of shit). You are motivated by rabid racism.
> >
> These are two unjustified claims, which were meant to be insults.
>
> In case you want to link me to Naziism, you would need to quote any kind
> or political statement by me, which would connect me to right winged
> movements.
>

Your statements over the years make it quite clear that you ARE a nazi piece of shit.

> But that will be most likely not succesfull, as I have been politically
> active more at the left side of the political spectrum.
>

Today's "left" is clearly antisemitic. So, you fit the mold.

> So, you took something out of thin air and meant it as an insult, just
> because I dared to criticise Einstein/SRT.
>

You are not competent to "criticize", you are just a pathetic hack.

Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>
>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>
>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>
> It isn't.
>
>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>
>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>
> Or any other people.
>
>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>> tell stories about these.
>>
>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>> psychology or history.
>
> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>
>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>
>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>> the participants in a discussion.
>
> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that then
> don't do that again.

Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.

This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
the topic of insults.

That is more or less on topic for this thread, even if this was not
meant as thread about personal relations of particpants in such a
discussion.

But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do.

One possibility is, that many participants write messages, which intend
to harm science itself.

A possible explanation would be a large scale scale 'conspiracy' of some
sort, which tries to hinder human progress in physics, because 'true
physics' is claimed to be owned by the conspirators.

For this purpose human or artificial 'disinformation agents' are hired,
which try to disrupt discussions.

Another possibility would be, that 'academia' is actually a disease and
science in general went off the track, due to a combination of stupidity
and greed.

In any case: a scientific discussion should stay away from personal
insults and should try to solve the problem in question and aim to
enhance science in general.

Only in this case there is no place for hidden science, if the
avantgarde of science would discuss openly.

But apparently hidden science is wanted, hence open discussions are not.

>> To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want,
>> because we are discussiong a topic in physics.
>
> It should be irrelevant anyway although you are not discussion a topic in
> physics.

Well, at least I have started this thread as a discussion about a text
in physics.

From there the thread drifted away several times.

>> If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences,
>> believe or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you
>> at all.
>
> Most importantly, you should not discuss those other topics here.
Why?

....

TH

Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB:
>> But not alone was this crap printed,
> It's not "crap", it's a very good paper.
>
>> >but was heralded to the world as
>> >pinnacle of all science,
> Because it is.

Possibly he got a hit in the error count.

>> >which was written by a true genius,
> Because it was.

There are two problems with your statement:

Was Einstein a genius?
had Einstein written the text himself?

Both questions needed to be examined and I would guess 'no' about both.

>> >who
>> >invented relativity and E=m*c².
> Because he did.

The equation was know already in 1905 and stems from nuclear decay.

As far as I can tell, Poincaré used it a couple of years before Einstein.

>> >Now many criticised this particular article in the years to come.
>> >
>> >But he critique was swept under the rug till the present day.
> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
> At best, such critiques may be debating something.
>

I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of
Einstein.

One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.

This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.

Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed.

TH

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 08:08:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:

> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.
>
> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.
>
> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed.

No critique of The Shit will ever be valid for a
fanatic believer in The Shit.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB:
> >>
> > There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
> > At best, such critiques may be debating something.
> >
> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of
> Einstein.
>
> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.
>
> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.

Yes, that's one instance I meant.

> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed.

No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they
necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not
the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some nonsense up.

Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within
the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?).

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 09:35:32 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB:
> > >>
> > > There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
> > > At best, such critiques may be debating something.
> > >
> > I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of
> > Einstein.
> >
> > One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.
> >
> > This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.
> Yes, that's one instance I meant.
> > Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed.
> No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they
> necessarily presume the understanding of the subject.

Only people understending The Shit enough to kneel before it
may criticize it! It's obvious.

> Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within
> the theory

An idiot is asserting! Must be true.

> and there is no experimental disproof (yet?).

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

JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>
>>> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
>>> At best, such critiques may be debating something.
>>>
>> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of
>> Einstein.
>>
>> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.
>>
>> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.
>
> Yes, that's one instance I meant.
>
>> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed.
>
> No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they
> necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not
> the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some nonsense up.
>
> Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within
> the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?).

Dingle goofed badly.

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 11:19:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:08:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 06.06.2022 um 09:16 schrieb JanPB:
> >>>>
> >>> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
> >>> At best, such critiques may be debating something.
> >>>
> >> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of
> >> Einstein.
> >>
> >> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.
> >>
> >> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.
> >
> > Yes, that's one instance I meant.
> >
> >> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique existed.
> >
> > No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they
> > necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not
> > the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some nonsense up.
> >
> > Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal contradiction within
> > the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?).
> Dingle goofed badly.

What to expect from a profesor of physics.

On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>>
>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>>
>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>>
>> Or any other people.
>>
>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>>> tell stories about these.
>>>
>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>>> psychology or history.
>>
>> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>>
>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>>
>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>>> the participants in a discussion.
>>
>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that then
>> don't do that again.
>
> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.
>
> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
> the topic of insults.

You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults.

> But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do.

One well known cause is that some people imitate what others have done
already. Another one is that people tend to repeat what they have done
before. That's why I proposed that you should study the first example
of a particular kind of behaviour.

> One possibility is, that many participants write messages, which intend
> to harm science itself.

Hardly many but some might. Unlikely that anything posted here could be
useful for that purpose.

> A possible explanation would be a large scale scale 'conspiracy' of
> some sort, which tries to hinder human progress in physics, because
> 'true physics' is claimed to be owned by the conspirators.

Unlikely. A small scale conspiracy is easier to organize and more
likely to do something as stupid as to waste effort here.

> For this purpose human or artificial 'disinformation agents' are hired,
> which try to disrupt discussions.

Disrupting discussion here has very little effect on anything.

> Another possibility would be, that 'academia' is actually a disease and
> science in general went off the track, due to a combination of
> stupidity and greed.
>
> In any case: a scientific discussion should stay away from personal
> insults and should try to solve the problem in question and aim to
> enhance science in general.

There is no "problem in question". The scientific discussion is about
problems in science.

> Only in this case there is no place for hidden science, if the
> avantgarde of science would discuss openly.

In spite of recommendations of "New Atlantis" by Francis Bacon the science
is open. Various organizations perform more or less secret private research
for their own or their customers' use but that is nor regarded as scinece.

> But apparently hidden science is wanted, hence open discussions are not.

Someone might want but there is no way to prevent public science.

>>> To me it is entirely irrelevant, who you are and what you want,
>>> because we are discussiong a topic in physics.
>>
>> It should be irrelevant anyway although you are not discussion a topic in
>> physics.
>
> Well, at least I have started this thread as a discussion about a text
> in physics.
>
> From there the thread drifted away several times.

In particular, you have switched to other topics.

>>> If we would discuss other topics like motivations, preferences,
>>> believe or political issues, I would most likely not discuss with you
>>> at all.
>>
>> Most importantly, you should not discuss those other topics here.
> Why?

"A common sense rule for deciding whether a possible topic is likely to be
considered acceptable here is to remember that the name of this newsgroup
is sci[ence].physics.relativity. If it's not about science, it doesn't
belong here. If it is about science but has little to do with physics, it
doesn't belong here. If it is about physics but has little to do with
relativity, it doesn't belong here."
www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/relativity-welcome/

Mikko

Am 07.06.2022 um 18:38 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-06-07 05:59:13 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 06.06.2022 um 10:07 schrieb Mikko:
>>> On 2022-06-06 06:56:40 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>>>>> Motivition is not important at all in science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on science. There are no motivations in physics but they are
>>>>> an important topic in psychology and history. Some theories about the
>>>>> behaviour of animals involve motivation, others try to do whithout.
>>>>
>>>> Well, if motivation of scientists is your particular science,
>>>
>>> It isn't.
>>>
>>>> than certainly you should cover this topic.
>>>>
>>>> But physics is not about motivations of any particular researcher.
>>>
>>> Or any other people.
>>>
>>>> Sure, these people had their particular motives and often historians
>>>> tell stories about these.
>>>>
>>>> But that is all not physics, but other branches of science like
>>>> psychology or history.
>>>
>>> So should be discussed in a better place than here.
>>>
>>>>> You introduced insults to discussion. Without discussion of motivation
>>>>> there is no way to obtain any useful result from that discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Physics is a natural science and its topic is the nature itself, not
>>>> the participants in a discussion.
>>>
>>> You started the discussion about participants. If you dont want that
>>> then
>>> don't do that again.
>>
>> Actually I started a thread about Einstein's SRT text from 1905.
>>
>> This thread meandered around a bit, like most threads do and included
>> the topic of insults.
>
> You didn't stick to the original topic but switched to insults.

I switched to such 'meta-discussions' about insults, because some
participants wrote insults about me.

I have actually received tons of such replies, while only very few about
my annotations themselves.

The usual pattern is, that someone wrote, that I'm unworthy for a reply,
because I have no formal education in physics, be a Nazi and critizised
Einstein, because he was a Jew.

This attack is total nonsense, but still is a very common pattern.

For instance it is a VERY bad practice to attack participants in a
scientific discussion personally.

It is therefore patently irrelvant, if I would be a Nazis (what I'm of
course not).

But sticking to the topic in question is seemingly already to difficult
for the attackers, hence they use insults instead of arguments.

>> But I actually try to find out, why people behave as they do.
>
> One well known cause is that some people imitate what others have done
> already. Another one is that people tend to repeat what they have done
> before. That's why I proposed that you should study the first example
> of a particular kind of behaviour.

A usual pattern is also 'Group think', because people think, that
enhancing the own group also enhances the own situation.

This is caused by immitation of the behaviour of peers. This is actually
how kids learn and why thinking in informal groups is very common.

Another common influence is systematic brainwashing by enities related
to believe or education.

Also politicians likes to cast the behaviour of the citicens into
certain forms, which they find useful for their particular agenda.

Another mayor influence stems from the families aqnd what they have
inherited.

All of these (plus several others, like media, work or money) combined
creates, what is the behaviour of an individual person.

What is actually missing in this list, that is what the person itself
should do, to enhance the own case and that, what would be good for
mankind in general.

Also science has an influence on what people do or think, because
science provides the tools for thinking and most of the people cannot
overcome these limits on their own.

(I, btw, can.)

>> One possibility is, that many participants write messages, which
>> intend to harm science itself.
>
> Hardly many but some might. Unlikely that anything posted here could be
> useful for that purpose.

My idea was, that some sort of 'hidden physics' would exist, which is
several decades in advance of the public one.

The forces behind that hidden science would then hire 'bullshit
artists', to maneauver the public's knowledge into dead ends.

And Einstein's paper was in this sense meant as diversion from true
knowledge by the public and served some sort of hidden agenda.

He had helpers (his 'wing men'), who supported him to get credibility
and attention, while he himself had to play the role of the 'nutty
professor'.

On a much smaller level such people here are helpers, too, who get some
sort of benefit by some kind of hidden groups.

My aim was now, to find out, whether such groups do exist and how they
function and who they actually are.

Unfortunatelly I have no answer to any of these questions.

>> A possible explanation would be a large scale scale 'conspiracy' of
>> some sort, which tries to hinder human progress in physics, because
>> 'true physics' is claimed to be owned by the conspirators.
>
> Unlikely. A small scale conspiracy is easier to organize and more
> likely to do something as stupid as to waste effort here.

As far as I can tell, 'conspiracy' is the wrong term.

More likely are large hierarchical groups, which maintain hidden agendas.

On the lower levels they are more or less harmless, because they don't
know much and do not have much influence on anything.

>> For this purpose human or artificial 'disinformation agents' are
>> hired, which try to disrupt discussions.
>
> Disrupting discussion here has very little effect on anything.

Depends on your goals.
>
>> Another possibility would be, that 'academia' is actually a disease
>> and science in general went off the track, due to a combination of
>> stupidity and greed.
>>
>> In any case: a scientific discussion should stay away from personal
>> insults and should try to solve the problem in question and aim to
>> enhance science in general.
>
> There is no "problem in question". The scientific discussion is about
> problems in science.

Sure, but not all discussions here are scientific.

>> Only in this case there is no place for hidden science, if the
>> avantgarde of science would discuss openly.
>
> In spite of recommendations of "New Atlantis" by Francis Bacon the science
> is open. Various organizations perform more or less secret private research
> for their own or their customers' use but that is nor regarded as scinece.

As about a lot of others things I have also an idea, where to search for
Atlantis.

I think, that the remains of Atlantis can be found at the south-west
coast of Krete, under water on the ground of the Mediterranian sea.

I think so, beause the Mediterranian sea was once cut off from the
Atlantic by a land bridge between Africa and current Spain.

For a very long time sea-levels fell inside a huge bassin, due to
evaporation. The people at that era settled e.g. south of the former
mountains, which today build Krete.

Then, caused by 'Growing Earth', that land bridge was disrupted and the
bassin filled with waters from the Atlantic (very similar to the land
bridge between Black Sea and Mediterranian Sea).

That looked, as if Atlantis sank, while in fact sea-levels had risen.

>> But apparently hidden science is wanted, hence open discussions are not.
>
> Someone might want but there is no way to prevent public science.

There are many ways...

For instance dissenters could be imprisoned.

Other methods could be lack of education, false science or brainwashing.

....

TH

Am 06.06.2022 um 16:43 schrieb Dono.:

>>>> Many insults came from a user named 'Dono', who called me 'Nazi' or similar.
>>>>
>>> But you ARE a nazi (piece of shit). You are motivated by rabid racism.
>>>
>> These are two unjustified claims, which were meant to be insults.
>>
>> In case you want to link me to Naziism, you would need to quote any kind
>> or political statement by me, which would connect me to right winged
>> movements.
>>
>
> Your statements over the years make it quite clear that you ARE a nazi piece of shit.
>
>
>> But that will be most likely not succesfull, as I have been politically
>> active more at the left side of the political spectrum.
>>
>
> Today's "left" is clearly antisemitic. So, you fit the mold.
>

What you have still failed to explain, that's why writing a critique
about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' has anything to do with
religion.

....

TH

Am 07.06.2022 um 11:19 schrieb Python:

>>>> There are no valid critiques pointing out any errors in the paper.
>>>> At best, such critiques may be debating something.
>>>>
>>> I have personally read several articles, which criticised the text of
>>> Einstein.
>>>
>>> One is 'Science at the crossroads' by Herbert Dingle.
>>>
>>> This was a profesor of physics with some reputation.
>>
>> Yes, that's one instance I meant.
>>
>>> Therefore you are wrong with your statement, that no valid critique
>>> existed.
>>
>> No, you misread. My point was one can write valid critiques but they
>> necessarily presume the understanding of the subject. This is not
>> the case here, you guys are merely fantasising and making some
>> nonsense up.
>>
>> Dingle's critique could only be philosophical, there is no internal
>> contradiction within
>> the theory and there is no experimental disproof (yet?).
>
> Dingle goofed badly.
>
> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

I didn't want to disproove relativity!

So it was not my aim, to reject the content of SRT itself.

My aim was to analyse Einstein's text, as if it were the only paper in
existence.

I gave Einstein all possible freedom to defend his ideas, but
insistented on allowed means, like formally correct mathematical proves.

And mentioning Dingle did not say, that I want to support his critique.

I mentioned his book only as disprove of the statement, that there was
not critique.

In fact there were and are many critics, like - btw- most of the
regulars of this board.

TH