It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.

Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
you just learned by yourself as a hobby.

Some of you wrote papers about einstenian relativity and got published somewhere, either paying or not, in 2nd. and lower class sites. Even it ca
be that you wrote a book, or part of it, in a known publishing house (paying
and publishing by yourself doesn't count).

But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity, worked with
"hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?

If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.

It goes for the following members, in particular:

- Tom Roberts
- Dono
- JanPB
- Paul Andersen
- ..........

You CAN'T (get it: can't) affirm that you HOLD THE TRUTH and that the other
people involved in any argument is ignorant or imbecile. YOU are the IMBECILE.

And it goes for EVERYONE HERE who support assertions with links to
imagery or documents from any of the above sources or any other
"respectable" site: University of Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc.

IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU are
defending, you are just parroting around.

You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.

That's all, dear PARROTS.

El miércoles, 30 de noviembre de 2022 a las 22:06:13 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.
>
> Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> you just learned by yourself as a hobby.
>
> Some of you wrote papers about einstenian relativity and got published somewhere, either paying or not, in 2nd. and lower class sites. Even it ca
> be that you wrote a book, or part of it, in a known publishing house (paying
> and publishing by yourself doesn't count).
>
> But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity, worked with
> "hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?
>
> If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
> at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
> Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
> just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.
>
> It goes for the following members, in particular:
>
> - Tom Roberts
> - Dono
> - JanPB
> - Paul Andersen
> - ..........
>
> You CAN'T (get it: can't) affirm that you HOLD THE TRUTH and that the other
> people involved in any argument is ignorant or imbecile. YOU are the IMBECILE.
>
> And it goes for EVERYONE HERE who support assertions with links to
> imagery or documents from any of the above sources or any other
> "respectable" site: University of Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc.
>
> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU are
> defending, you are just parroting around.
>
> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.
>
> That's all, dear PARROTS.

You should look yourself in a mirror before writing nonsense. What are your qualifications? How many patents , papers, books have you written?

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 10:21:11 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> You should look yourself in a mirror before writing nonsense. What are your qualifications? How many patents , papers, books have you written?

- 42 patents since 1975.
- More than 250 papers (private defense community).
- 1 Handbook (Professional Guide, 1000+ pages).
- 4 books (private circulation among defense community).
- More than 500 million USD in different projects, under my direct supervision. Multidisciplinary team > 150 professionals and technicians.
- More than 50 articles about popular electronics (audio synth., HF/VHF transceivers, CP/M computers SW & HW, entire BIOS, etc.).
- More than 30 presentations/lectures at USA, Canada, Germany, France and Italy (private defense community).
- Held two professorship positions at two different universities for more than 20 years, then got tired.
- .....

I don't need your background, Miguelito. I read it last year.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:06:13 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity, worked with
> "hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?

Does contributing a few work units to the Einstein@Home
project count?
https://einsteinathome.org/

Actually, though, so far as experimental science in ANY
field goes, I used to be an academic researcher in
molecular biology. One of my papers from 38 years ago
has lately gotten a major uptick in citation frequency
because of the usefulness of my old discovery in a
variant of CRISPR methodology.

Actually, I am planning to contribute to the CRISPR
article in Wikipedia. I'll let you know when I've made
my addition.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>I am the IMBECILE.
We knew that

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.
>
> Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> you just learned by yourself as a hobby.
>
> Some of you wrote papers about einstenian relativity and got published somewhere, either paying or not, in 2nd. and lower class sites. Even it ca
> be that you wrote a book, or part of it, in a known publishing house (paying
> and publishing by yourself doesn't count).
>
> But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity, worked with
> "hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?
>
> If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
> at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
> Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
> just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.
>
> It goes for the following members, in particular:
>
> - Tom Roberts
> - Dono
> - JanPB
> - Paul Andersen
> - ..........
>
> You CAN'T (get it: can't) affirm that you HOLD THE TRUTH and that the other
> people involved in any argument is ignorant or imbecile. YOU are the IMBECILE.
>
> And it goes for EVERYONE HERE who support assertions with links to
> imagery or documents from any of the above sources or any other
> "respectable" site: University of Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc.
>
> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU are
> defending, you are just parroting around.
>
> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.
>
> That's all, dear PARROTS.

So... just how many experiments have *you* participated in, FIRST HAND, Richard? Hmmmm? According to you, it seems that *you* are a parrot, too...

You, too, have no right to intellectual superiority... IMHO...

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 10:45:35 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> So... just how many experiments have *you* participated in, FIRST HAND, Richard? Hmmmm? According to you, it seems that *you* are a parrot, too...
>
> You, too, have no right to intellectual superiority... IMHO...

I don't claim intellectual superiority at any SERIOUS post of mine, because it IS NOT IN MY NATURE to downplay people (like
the asshole Tom, a typical narcissist character in professional mediums). Most of the time, and since a child, my first impulse
is to help people to understand, and even I feel sorrow for those who don't get it quickly.

But here, and with selected members, I use such downplaying mechanism as far and deep as I possibly can. And I have THREE
targets in mind (four with the vanished Dork vin Mooortel). They are: Dono, JanPB and Tom Roberts. In the case of Volroney, it
doesn't count because I like the guy. Only that it's so tempting to use him as a punching ball!

In the case of the King and Queen of assholes (Dono, Roberts), I have no mercy at all because I FEEL that they are not of good nature.

I think that Volroney is a good guy, as well as JanPB. They are not mean people, just overly enthusiastic defending their creeds. In the
case of JanPB, I know I've been though with him many times because he irritates me with his "you don't/can't understand" variations.

In the case of Paul Andersen, I like the guy. I've been mostly respectful of his behavior and commitment with his beliefs. I barely engaged
with him in a nasty way, and he (most of the time) correspond.

I don't come here to posit any borrowed knowledge. I, most of the time, post about things that occurred to me, even when I play the role
of historian of physics. So, I post things MOST OF THE TIME in order to create CONTROVERSY. And I have fun doing it.

I have no other reason to come here. For instance, NOT TO LEARN ANYTHING. I'm self-sufficient on that matter and, IF I want to know
something I just do some research. And I'm very good doing research, I always was.

So, I don't patronize people and I don't LECTURE people (Tom). I just post something juicy (for me) in order to pick a fight.

What is funny is that I have openly declared my intentions since day 1, years ago. And I repeat it IF I feel it's required.

Not too difficult to understand, isn't it?

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:07:20 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> What is funny is that I have openly declared my intentions since day 1, years ago. And I repeat it IF I feel it's required: I want to be the no.1 clown in this forum

You are. Mission accomplished.

As a grad student, we set up some scintillation counters in the muon
beamline at Fermilab, in order to study how well it could transport
pions after removing the absorber. At my urging, we carefully cut each
cable to the same length, so by measuring the time between signals from
them, and measuring the distance along the beamline between counters, we
could measure the speed of the particles traversing the beamline. For
all momenta that the beamline could be tuned to transport, something
like 20 GeV to 200 GeV, the speed was the same and within errorbars of
c. This is unpublished work.

In my thesis experiment we studied the reaction
pi- A => pi- pi+ pi- A
at 23 GeV, in a spectrometer at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The
4-momentum of the initial pi- was measured, as were the 4-momenta of the
three outgoing pions. For > 90% of the events that matched this
signature, the 4-momentum balanced within errorbars. For the ~ 10% that
displayed an imbalance, they were consistent with other particles being
produced or the nucleus splitting. We have many thousands of events for
which 4-momentum was conserved, and an understanding of those that
appeared to not conserve it. There are several journal articles on this
experiment.

In modeling space charge in particle beamlines, and comparing to
measurements of actual beams, including relativistic effects is
required. I have done this, and have written a major simulation program
for such modeling. This requires the use of the Lorentz transform
between the lab and beam frames, and the transforms of E and B between
those frames. There is an article in IPAC proceedings on this, and a
final report for the STTR grant that funded the work.

I have participated in many other experiments, and some could be
described as testing some aspect of SR. These are the ones that come to
mind right now.

BTW understanding a theory of physics and knowing how to apply it does
not make one a "PARROT". You are psychologically projecting your
personal limitations onto others -- apparently all YOU can do is
"parrot", and simply do not realize that other people do not need to do
so.

BTW SR needs no "defense". I explain it, not "defend" it. Nobody around
here, INCLUDING YOU, has ever said anything that actually challenged
any aspect of SR or GR.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, 1 December 2022 at 06:51:04 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:

> BTW SR needs no "defense". I explain it, not "defend" it. Nobody around
> here, INCLUDING YOU, has ever said anything that actually challenged
> any aspect of SR or GR.

Why to challenge any aspect of some inconsistent
mumble of a bunch of raligious maniacs? In the
meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in
forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2022 alle 02:06:13 UTC+1 Richard Hertz ha scritto:
> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.
>
> Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> you just learned by yourself as a hobby.
>
> Some of you wrote papers about einstenian relativity and got published somewhere, either paying or not, in 2nd. and lower class sites. Even it ca
> be that you wrote a book, or part of it, in a known publishing house (paying
> and publishing by yourself doesn't count).
>
> But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity, worked with
> "hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?
>
> If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
> at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
> Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
> just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.
>
> It goes for the following members, in particular:
>
> - Tom Roberts
> - Dono
> - JanPB
> - Paul Andersen
> - ..........
>
> You CAN'T (get it: can't) affirm that you HOLD THE TRUTH and that the other
> people involved in any argument is ignorant or imbecile. YOU are the IMBECILE.
>
> And it goes for EVERYONE HERE who support assertions with links to
> imagery or documents from any of the above sources or any other
> "respectable" site: University of Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc.
>
> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU are
> defending, you are just parroting around.
>
> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.
>
> That's all, dear PARROTS.
beda
I think SR/GR has dragged physics in a "cul de sac", and it will stay there, till physics recovers from them.
Any progress is coming from the advanced technological applications and experiments, that urges experimentallists
to investigate all possible routes to progress (in good and, unfortunately, also evil, directions).
regards
beda

Den 01.12.2022 02:06, skrev Richard Hertz:
> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.
>
> Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> you just learned by yourself as a hobby.

SR and GR are tested by innumerable experiments
and neither of them are falsified.
So nobody has to defend SR and GR because their
validity is not disputed by physicists.

Those who know SR and GR do not have to do own
experiments to be able to tell ignoramuses and cranks
what SR and GR say about this and that.

Some of the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

BTW, Richard.
You have been defending Newton's prediction for
the gravitational deflection of light, and you
have claimed that GR's predictions are wrong.

Is that because you have done an experiment
that confirms Newton and falsifies GR?
Have you written a paper about it and published it?

I know that GR predictions for gravitational bending
are correct, because others have done the experiments.

A knowledge I will keep parroting.

Some of the experiments that confirm GR's predictions
for gravitational deflection of light:

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf

(I know you hate the experimental evidence that
proves you wrong, that's why I love to rub it in.)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

El miércoles, 30 de noviembre de 2022 a las 22:35:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 10:21:11 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You should look yourself in a mirror before writing nonsense. What are your qualifications? How many patents , papers, books have you written?
> - 42 patents since 1975.
> - More than 250 papers (private defense community).
> - 1 Handbook (Professional Guide, 1000+ pages).
> - 4 books (private circulation among defense community).
> - More than 500 million USD in different projects, under my direct supervision. Multidisciplinary team > 150 professionals and technicians.
> - More than 50 articles about popular electronics (audio synth., HF/VHF transceivers, CP/M computers SW & HW, entire BIOS, etc.).
> - More than 30 presentations/lectures at USA, Canada, Germany, France and Italy (private defense community).
> - Held two professorship positions at two different universities for more than 20 years, then got tired.
> - .....
>
> I don't need your background, Miguelito. I read it last year.

So of all those alleged documents from yours, none of those referring to SR, you can not give any reference we can read, right?. Is your real name Richard Hertz?

On Thursday, 1 December 2022 at 13:46:55 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.12.2022 02:06, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.
> >
> > Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> > you just learned by yourself as a hobby.
> SR and GR are tested by innumerable experiments
> and neither of them are falsified.
> So nobody has to defend SR and GR because their
> validity is not disputed by physicists.
>
> Those who know SR and GR do not have to do own
> experiments to be able to tell ignoramuses and cranks
> what SR and GR say about this and that.
>
> Some of the experimental evidence:
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

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

>
>
> BTW, Richard.
> You have been defending Newton's prediction for
> the gravitational deflection of light,

You mean - Newton's optics predictions,
poor lying shit?

and you
> have claimed that GR's predictions are wrong.
>
> Is that because you have done an experiment
> that confirms Newton and falsifies GR?
> Have you written a paper about it and published it?
>
> I know that GR predictions for gravitational bending
> are correct, because

Because they predict light (in vacuum) is always
travelling straight paths.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> As a grad student, we set up some scintillation counters in the muon
> beamline at Fermilab, in order to study how well it could transport
> pions after removing the absorber. At my urging, we carefully cut each
> cable to the same length, so by measuring the time between signals from
> them, and measuring the distance along the beamline between counters, we
> could measure the speed of the particles traversing the beamline. For
> all momenta that the beamline could be tuned to transport, something
> like 20 GeV to 200 GeV, the speed was the same and within errorbars of
> c. This is unpublished work.
>
> In my thesis experiment we studied the reaction
> pi- A => pi- pi+ pi- A
> at 23 GeV, in a spectrometer at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The
> 4-momentum of the initial pi- was measured, as were the 4-momenta of the
> three outgoing pions. For > 90% of the events that matched this
> signature, the 4-momentum balanced within errorbars. For the ~ 10% that
> displayed an imbalance, they were consistent with other particles being
> produced or the nucleus splitting. We have many thousands of events for
> which 4-momentum was conserved, and an understanding of those that
> appeared to not conserve it. There are several journal articles on this
> experiment.
>
> In modeling space charge in particle beamlines, and comparing to
> measurements of actual beams, including relativistic effects is
> required. I have done this, and have written a major simulation program
> for such modeling. This requires the use of the Lorentz transform
> between the lab and beam frames, and the transforms of E and B between
> those frames. There is an article in IPAC proceedings on this, and a
> final report for the STTR grant that funded the work.
>
> I have participated in many other experiments, and some could be
> described as testing some aspect of SR. These are the ones that come to
> mind right now.
>
> BTW understanding a theory of physics and knowing how to apply it does
> not make one a "PARROT". You are psychologically projecting your
> personal limitations onto others -- apparently all YOU can do is
> "parrot", and simply do not realize that other people do not need to do
> so.
>
> BTW SR needs no "defense". I explain it, not "defend" it. Nobody around
> here, INCLUDING YOU, has ever said anything that actually challenged
> any aspect of SR or GR.
>
> Tom Roberts

Tom, I'm glad that you recovered your senses and felt the need to tell something about your early years
as a grad student making research on particle physics. It presents you as a more humble person, which is great.

I'll not question the real value of your early work, even when I sound weird mixing "vacuum transported particles" with
electrical signaling on cables of the same length.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Plan-view-of-the-pion-muon-beamline_fig5_331463086

But, seriously, HOW did your work (and other people's work in this field) has contributed in ANY way to modern technology?

On the other part, you don't know shit about what I did in my best years as a professional. I still don't/can't talk about it, because
I worked on sensitive & classified defense projects (big ones with heavy budgets and all the support technology required).

I never, ever, wrote a word about it HERE in the last four years.

On the other hand, I put my passion (once retired) into the history of physics and mathematics. I found it FASCINATING to find the
threads that connect one breakthrough with another, along centuries (or decades, depending on the subject).

To do THAT, good skills in mathematics AND physics are required, or you FAIL connecting threads. But also, and this makes this
hobby interesting, a good understanding of the human spirit and its RESILIENCE is required. So, I connect body-mind-context-behaviors
and the results are, for me, MORE than satisfactory. I find pleasure UNDERSTANDING how mankind advanced through the years and, also,
developing the timeline for any modern achievement.

I'm not going around showing off my "discoveries". The only work that I published but did not advertise, except here two or three times,
is what connected the early XIX century perception of radiant heat with Planck's final breakthrough 100 years later. Something that Paul,
for any reason, refuse to read.

For a professor, there are two paths: Either you taught physics OR history of physics, which are not the same. The second path is MUCH
LARGER, but much more enlightening as well. The first path is very subjective: You have a limited time to present your material, so you
do it with CANNED formulae and criteria. I used the second method when I was teaching, and I found that mixing formulae and theories
with the human history BEHIND, made students more enthusiastic about learning. And, also, the knowledge that was carried to them was
far more deep, complete.

Don't resort to personal attacks on intelligence, knowledge or capability. I don't show off it here, as it's not my nature.

What I do here is some revisionism (how and why Einstein cheated so many times) and write posts with some own NEW ideas
or challenges on "adopted" knowledge. It's not too difficult to understand what moves me to do so. Because I have fun doing it
and observing reactions. But, BEWARE of the rationality of what I post. I usually have a tendency to be more right than wrong, so
don't reject with insults or downplays my CRANKY posts. Just think twice or more about the CONTENT.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 9:50:52 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> So of all those alleged documents from yours, none of those referring to SR, you can not give any reference we can read, right?. Is your real name Richard Hertz?

I wrote my early history here, a couple of times, in particular arguing with Bodkin.

I entered to the University being 15 y.o. to study physics. I wasted two years in the golden decade of electronics.
I saw physics DYING, scratching the bottom of rationality and I witnessed the birth of microprocessors and LSI solid state electronics.

Disappointed, I quit physics and fresh started an engineering career in electronics. I never regret that decision.

Relativity HAD A LOT TO DO with my decision. Stupid relativity, plus my conversations with junior and senior physicists about what
was lying ahead for them. I considered that such future was STERILE, while solid state physics was peaking by then (early '70s).

I never worked on anything related to relativity, yet I'm a critic of such pseudo-science, which I consider WORTHLESS.

El jueves, 1 de diciembre de 2022 a las 10:22:44 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 9:50:52 AM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > So of all those alleged documents from yours, none of those referring to SR, you can not give any reference we can read, right?. Is your real name Richard Hertz?

> I wrote my early history here, a couple of times, in particular arguing with Bodkin.
>
> I entered to the University being 15 y.o. to study physics. I wasted two years in the golden decade of electronics.
> I saw physics DYING, scratching the bottom of rationality and I witnessed the birth of microprocessors and LSI solid state electronics.
>
> Disappointed, I quit physics and fresh started an engineering career in electronics. I never regret that decision.
>
> Relativity HAD A LOT TO DO with my decision. Stupid relativity, plus my conversations with junior and senior physicists about what
> was lying ahead for them. I considered that such future was STERILE, while solid state physics was peaking by then (early '70s).
>
> I never worked on anything related to relativity, yet I'm a critic of such pseudo-science, which I consider WORTHLESS.

You did not answered the question which was:

So of all those alleged documents from yours, none of those referring to SR, you can not give any reference we can read, right?.
Is your real name Richard Hertz?

Re: Did you participate in any experiment, first hand, that verified any
relativistic effect? No? Then you're a PARROT.

On 11/30/22 5:06 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.

I clicked on a web site and it showed weather conditions based upon
RADAR.

If light did not have a constant speed that was not dependent on
the speed of the emitting or receiving object then different
light would echo back differently in terms of the time that
it came back to the source differently.

Now perhaps light might have same speed as long as the emitter
or receiver have known speeds. Except what would this effect
be? RADAR seems to work to show weather patterns.

All of this is based upon the idea that light has a constant
speed, regardless of the speed with respect to various other
objects of an emitter or a receiver.

The electronics in the RADAR mechanism is fast, and it is all
based upon the theory that light does have a constant speed.

Now there is the possibility that it could have the same speed
on a frequency or wavelength basis, but differ with respect to
frequency or wavelength. There might be some types of RADAR
that use more than one frequency, and is not doppler, and of
course there is light readings that you get from satellites.

But different returns based upon multi-velocity light does
not seem to happen. The Doppler effect is of course a
change in frequency but not a change in speed.

> Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> you just learned by yourself as a hobby.

Most people are controlled by their base physiological inputs.

What is 'true'? That which satisfies them. The lust to
eat food is one of them. So if people use money to buy
food that tends to mean that people are often controlled
by money. Thus teachers are controlled by the paychecks
that they get to buy food and other materials.

Probably worst are the 'judges' in nuclear weapons states.

Nuclear weapons were designed to kill millions of human beings.

Yet the judges of these nations believe that monsters called
'heads of state' or 'heads of government' should have the
unquestioned right to murder millions of human beings based
upon whim. These 'heads of state' or 'heads of government'
wander around doing 'diplomacy' at times, but they maintain
the existence of these nuclear weapons anyway. In general,
they conspire to kill millions of people. They pat each
other on the back. I conspire to give you the unquestioned
right to kill millions of people in my own country and in
return I have the unquestioned right to kill millions of
people in your country.

You would think that they would order these governments
throughout the world to dismantle the nuclear weapons
simply to protect their own lives. But no. Their lust
for their salaries involve them in this international
conspiracy.

> Some of you wrote papers about einstenian relativity and got
published somewhere, either paying or not, in 2nd. and lower class
sites. Even it ca
> be that you wrote a book, or part of it, in a known publishing house
(paying
> and publishing by yourself doesn't count).
>
> But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity,
worked with
> "hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?

I have never designed, built, or maintained any RADAR
equipment. I would imagine that some of the people
that have did a minimum level of acquiescence.
Something on the order of 'well the textbooks
seem to give the idea that it works'.

> If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
> at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
> Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
> just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.
>
> It goes for the following members, in particular:
>
> - Tom Roberts
> - Dono
> - JanPB
> - Paul Andersen
> - ..........
>
> You CAN'T (get it: can't) affirm that you HOLD THE TRUTH and that the
other
> people involved in any argument is ignorant or imbecile. YOU are the
IMBECILE.
>
> And it goes for EVERYONE HERE who support assertions with links to
> imagery or documents from any of the above sources or any other
> "respectable" site: University of Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc.
>
> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU are
> defending, you are just parroting around.

I am thinking that 'parroted' knowledge could potentially
still be true.

> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.

This is a question about the nature of knowledge. It
seems feasible to me that the claim could be made that
no secondhand or third hand knowledge is even possible.

Nonetheless, to me at least, your knowledge is second
hand, and you are making claims about third person
knowledge.

> That's all, dear PARROTS.

Squawk. The sky is blue. Squawk. Polly wanna cracker.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:06:13 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
> at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
> Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
> just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.

Standard crank talk.

What happens is that this knowledge is barred to you (for whatever reason) so
you simply declare it unimportant or, at best, "borrowed". This accomplishes
several things:

(1) It absolves you from doing any work,

(2) It belittles your opponents at low cost: you don't have to argue the case
with them, you simply declare them "parrots" and you are done,

(3) It pacifies your sense of regret that you'll never gain access to this knowledge
(again, the reasons vary, it could be just laziness or the lack of talent, or some
events in life, whatever). You simply declare such knowledge unimportant anyway.

If you cannot do physics, do something else. Just be decent and honourable enough
not to call names people who are involved in the line of work you have no idea about.
Just stay away, do something else with your free time.

--
Jan

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I think that Volroney is a good guy, as well as JanPB. They are not mean people, just overly enthusiastic defending their creeds.

They are not creeds. Stop fantasising. If you want defeat X, you must first
have a clear concept of what X is. Otherwise you'll end up forever missing
your target (which is what's been happening to you on this NG since the
day you joined). That's also why I keep repeating that you are wasting your life
away (as long as you refuse to do the honest work).

> In the
> case of JanPB, I know I've been though with him many times because he irritates me with his "you don't/can't understand" variations.

Because it's patently obvious to anyone reasonably competent that you are
simply 100% wrong on almost everything you say here. I cannot think of any
explanation other than you don't understand the subject. Otherwise the only
conclusion would be that you're simply a troll but as you say, I'm basically
not a mean person :-)

> In the case of Paul Andersen, I like the guy. I've been mostly respectful of his behavior and commitment with his beliefs. I barely engaged
> with him in a nasty way, and he (most of the time) correspond.
>
> I don't come here to posit any borrowed knowledge.

Nobody does. Stop fantasising that experts merely say what they heard.

> I, most of the time, post about things that occurred to me, even when I play the role
> of historian of physics. So, I post things MOST OF THE TIME in order to create CONTROVERSY.

Problem is you chose the wrong manner of doing this. Creating controversy
may be a good thing but it cannot be based on fantasies. You need a solid
foundation to stand on. But if you reach from a world view according to which
it makes no sense (for example) to use abstractions like lines and curves,
point masses, etc., then you no longer raise controversy: you simply descend
into chaos. And yes, chaos is controversial, but so what?

--
Jan

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:51:04 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Nobody around
> here, INCLUDING YOU, has ever said anything that actually challenged
> any aspect of SR or GR.

Very true.

--
Jan

On Thursday, 1 December 2022 at 22:06:55 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 4:07:20 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > I think that Volroney is a good guy, as well as JanPB. They are not mean people, just overly enthusiastic defending their creeds.
> They are not creeds. Stop fantasising. If you want defeat X, you must first
> have a clear concept of what X is.

And relativity is a self denying mumble
od an idiot mystician, believed by some
religious maniacs.

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:51:04 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Nobody around here, INCLUDING YOU, has ever said anything that actually
>> challenged any aspect of SR or GR.
>
> Very true.

leads to contradictions macro scale, idiot. No mechanism existent
explaining the constancy of the speed of light (same light, macro scale
mechanism).

meanwhile, more "technology" ready to fake. I can't believe they are so
stupid.

Stealth landing gear
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/e06aBgK9uqDv

btw, not to forget:

MIG_21, year 1981, *_Mach_2.2_*

F_35, year 2022, *_Mach_1.6_*

I didn't bother to reply to Tom but, as you brought this paragraph again, I'll say a couple of things:

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:08:43 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:51:04 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Nobody around here, INCLUDING YOU, has ever said anything that actually challenged any aspect of SR or GR.
> Very true.

I not only challenged aspects of SR and GR MANY TIMES, but I PROVED that both theories are just A PILE OF CRAP.

Let me refresh your memory:

1) I wrote that, due to the ORIGIN of Lorentz transforms under Einstein's view (his 1905 paper), CLEARLY both "length contraction
and time dilation" are the result of a SINGLE, UNIFIED body of mathematical development. And, from the TWIN TRANSFORMS,
length contraction HAS NEVER BEEN VERIFIED in 117 years and counting. SO, length contraction (the only aspirational quest that
moved Lorentz to write his 1904 paper, after 12 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT) is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. It's a PROFOUNDLY WRONG
concept that HAS NO PHYSICAL MEANING AT ALL.

Now, THINK before talk/write: IF the pair of transforms emerged from a SINGLE MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENT, then REASON
DICTATES that the OTHER transform (time dilation) IS ALSO WRONG, MEANINGLESS. A fucking mathematical ILLUSION that has
burnt thousand of minds for over a CENTURY. Do you get it, JanPB?. Do you get it, Tom?. Do ANY of the SR supporters here CAN
say otherwise?

It is PURE LOGIC in action. Pure RATIONALITY!!!

SR is completely wrong, is useless and only served for 110 years as "fantasy food for thought" for thousands of persons, who were
delighted thinking about how nature hide one of the most precious secrets: that THINGS are not what they seem to BE, and that
events in nature, above certain thresholds, have an extraordinary, hallucinogenic behavior. And such "wrong understanding" of reality
made this people FEEL GOOD about the power of human intellect, because from a couple of pages of a theoretical work, a single person
was able TO EXTRACT from nature some of its secrets. A triumph of man over the unknown, revealed by a person that wrote such
paper in the darkness of general knowledge of that epoch, before everything that we have, know and enjoy today. A truly newtonian
or maxwellian moment, in a couple of pages. BUT ALL THIS CRAP IS MATHTURBATION, which is highly addictive.

2) I proved, after more a month of microscopic analysis of the Einstein's Nov. 18, 1915 paper, that such paper about Mercury is a
FRAUDULENT reverse engineering of 1898 Gerber's formula, which is revealed in Equation 11 (a bridge between the first and the
second part). I also proved that Einstein MANIPULATED his equations for the expression of GR in a universe void of matter and
energy, except for A SINGLE dot-like mass at the coordinate origin, giving rid of time coordinate and FORCING (hacking) a pure
newtonian solution for orbit of planets around the Sun by CHANGING (and hiding the origin of it) newtonian gravitational field for
OTHER (which appeared out of the blue), in order to ADD A THIRD ROOT to the inverse square root of a quadratic polynomial.
Also, and CAREFULLY CRAFTED, a blatant FRAUD present after Equation 11, in order TO CHANGE SIGN AND MAGNITUDE of
the integral. The three or four persons that cried foul with my post DIDN'T ACCEPT the evident fraud, even if it was EATING THEIR FACES.

I also proved that Einstein's approximation WAS CHALLENGED by Schwarzschild in his paper which, in a very strange way, appeared
one month after Einstein's one. And such solution (a stroke of a genius and a slap in the face of the imbecile) remained as the ONLY
possible solution FOR NEARLY 40 years. It's all in Schwarzschild's first paper, including A NEW PROPOSAL to develop equation 11,
which lead to A DIFFERENT SOLUTION than Einstein's one. But nobody was willing to take the job of fact-check my demonstration.

There are more cases in three years, but I'm tired, and I have to go.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or amateur.
>
> Most of you, if not all, are here to DEFEND WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT or what
> you just learned by yourself as a hobby.
>
> Some of you wrote papers about einstenian relativity and got published somewhere, either paying or not, in 2nd. and lower class sites. Even it ca
> be that you wrote a book, or part of it, in a known publishing house (paying
> and publishing by yourself doesn't count).
>
> But, how many of you, ardent defenders of einstenian relativity, worked with
> "hands on the job" in ANY experiment, at college or corporate labs? NONE?
>
> If what YOU SUPPORT is based on what you were told, taught, read or else
> at/from ANY "professional" place (NASA, ESA, Cambridge, MIT, UCLA,
> Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, CERN, etc.), then consider yourself as being
> just A PARROT that work with BORROWED knowledge.
>
> It goes for the following members, in particular:
>
> - Tom Roberts
> - Dono
> - JanPB
> - Paul Andersen
> - ..........
>
> You CAN'T (get it: can't) affirm that you HOLD THE TRUTH and that the other
> people involved in any argument is ignorant or imbecile. YOU are the IMBECILE.
>
> And it goes for EVERYONE HERE who support assertions with links to
> imagery or documents from any of the above sources or any other
> "respectable" site: University of Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Rome, etc.
>
> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU are
> defending, you are just parroting around.
>
> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.
>
> That's all, dear PARROTS.
Wonderfully stated Richard, as usual.