Volney wrote:

> W̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶o̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶? F̶r̶o̶m̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶, f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶ i̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (t̶a̶u̶t̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶) b̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶. D̶o̶ r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ "m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶" i̶s̶ e̶s̶s̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ N̶A̶M̶E̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶ i̶s̶ d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ a̶n̶ u̶n̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶), s̶o̶ k̶ i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶r̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ i̶t̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ K̶.

Estonia does not want “a new community” in the country “that doesn’t speak Estonian,” PM Kaja Kallas says
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/569122-estonia-ukrainians-language-policy/

The PM’s comments on Estonian courses for Ukrainian refugees did not escape Moscow’s attention. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova took to Telegram to respond: “Kaja, Adolf [Hitler] would be proud of you. Without you it would be much more difficult to prove the dehumanization of the collective West. Estonia for Estonians, right? Say it already, and stop palping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your sweaty palms.”

the nazis of uKraine admits severe */_war_crimes_/*.

Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN

you are sold as *slave* already. You are fucking *patented*.

Listen closely to every single word. Israel is last for a reason. Khazarian Mafia.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/TLUG36poJytT

Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>
>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points.
>>>
>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
>>>
>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria.
>
> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself.
> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological
> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more
> reliable.
>
Science is not an organisation.

Science is a certain method to find things out.

This method is conducted by people, which are often organised into such
organisations.

Most prominent examples are universities, where professors (and others)
conduct some sort or research.

These profesors investigate problems of interest by what is called
'scientific method'.

If they find something interesting, they publish it in a scientific
newspaper (today mainly on the internet).

The university itself is not really involved in this process, even if
the institution hires and houses professors, because organisations do
not conduct scientific research.

This is something only an entity with a brain can do, hence people can
and organisations can't.

Well, that's theory only, because some universities claim, that the
scientific discoveries of their professors are theirs.

In Germany, where I live, the situation is slightly different to e.g.
the USA, because the organisations do not own the results, while in the
USA they mainly do.

In Germany the professors are therefore more aware of the scientific
method, while in the USA they are more aware of the requirements of
their employer.

TH

Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and
>>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>>> overlook.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>>> always the same:
>>>>
>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>>> and the case is closed.
>>>
>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>>
>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>
>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>
>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>
>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>
>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>
>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>
>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>
>>>> The second equation is this
>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>
>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>
>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>> moving
>>>
>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>
>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that movement.
>>>
>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in
>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>
>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>
> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>
>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>
>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>> the equation for the moving system.
>
> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
> is moving relative to K.

Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant
'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.

This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.

That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space would
not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space as
unmentioned reference.

You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would
make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own
coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also
the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.

But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K is
stationary and system k is moving.

>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>
> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.

No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise unspecified
point (x, y, z).

This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were,
what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).

The (unmentioned) observer should be placed in the center of system K,
hence we could use 'system K' and 'initial observer' interchangably.

Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to
system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what
is nonsense)

He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were
created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the other
also symmetrically in system k.

But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the
coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of emitter.

This emitter emitts one spherical wave only, which is observed from a
position stationary in respect to the emitter and from a different
position moving in respect to the emitter.

This would cause the so called 'Doppler effect' and a distortion of the
wave in the case, where the emitter is in relative motion.

In that case of a distorted wave, that wave would no longer be
spherical, hence Einstein's claim was wrong.

>> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different
>> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one
>> is regarded as stationary and one as moving.
>
> It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you
> consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This
> has been known wrong since Galileo.

I didn't, but interpreted Einstein's text that way.

This assumption (about Einstein's intentions) is justified, because
Einstein used the word 'stationary', but nothing in respect to what that
entity should be stationary.

The only possible interpretation for Einstein's words is, that he meant
absolute space (despite having excluded that already).

>> The task is therefore to convert the coordinates of (1,2,3) in K to
>> some other coordinates in k.
>>
>> But that was not, what Einstein had actually done.
>>
>> Instead he implicitly created a new wave and made that expand in the
>> moving system k.
>
> Not a new wave, he just shows how the same wave expands in k. Remember
> in k the time parameter is not t but τ.
>>
>> Einstein should have provided a coordinate transformation, but didn't.
>> He simply wrote Greek letters instead od Latin ones.
>>
>> The Greek letters mean coordinates in system k.
>>
>> But that was already known, because he wanted to derive coordinates in
>> k. The interesting part would be to know, WHICH coordinates come out
>> of the coordinate transformation.
>>
>> The exchange of letters was then used as justification of this statement:
>>
>> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
>> with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This
>> shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."
>
> No, he derived how ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ² was the result for the moving
> system.
>
> You ignored the phrase "when viewed in the moving system."

Am 29.12.2022 um 13:51 schrieb Ufonaut:

>>> "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
>>> with velocity of propagation c WHEN VIEWED IN THE MOVING SYSTEM. "
>>>
>>> That statement is saying that for those observers in (b) , they WILL measure a spherical wavefront (and further, a spherical wavefront that remains centred on the origin of those observer's "moving" frame, despite the fact that that that origin is moving - and so will have moved - from the origin of the "stationary" frame).
>> see here, for instance:
>>
>> "College Physics Lectures, Spherical and plane waves"
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIogELkDMvg
>>
>> Now we have a spherical wave, which expands symmetrically around the
>> center of system K.
>>
>>
>> Now we have a moving system k and observe the spherical wave from the
>> center of that system, hence move in respect to the spherical wave's center.
>>
>> From this relative movement would follow, that the spherical wave would
>> show something called 'Doppler effect' and red-shift on the receeding
>> side and blue-shift on the other.
>>
>> From the same author:
>>
>> "College Physics Lectures, Spherical Waves, Plane Waves and the Doppler
>> Effect"
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArISUeRLQcE
>>
>> These videos are about sound. But sound is actually a good example for
>> the Doppler effect, because it is a dayly experience.
>>
>> Light is way faster and the Doppler effect on light therefore less easy
>> to observe. But the effect itself is quite similar, only the velocities
>> are much greater.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> TH
>
> That I, and Volney (and of course, Einstein) have explicitly stated that the observer who is moving relative to the source will measure red/blue shift (Doppler effect) means not only that your post here is not telling us anything new, but also a clear indication that you have totally misunderstood and/or ignored what we are actually saying (especially, of course as usual, Einstein - so I guess that means we can add this to your list of 400 other misunderstandings that you have of what Einstein said ;) )
>

Einstein had not mentioned red- or blueshift.

Actually changes of the wavelength of a wave could not be covered by
Einstein, because neither the Word 'wavelength' nor any other equivalent
phrase or term in an equation were present in that paper at all.

Where the Doppler effect was actually mentioned (in §7), the
similarities to his own factors and effects were ignored.

TH

On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>
> >>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
> >>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
> >>>
> >> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria.
> >
> > Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself.
> > Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological
> > lie, intended to make science (as institution) more
> > reliable.
> >
> Science is not an organisation.

Oh, yes, it is.

> Science is a certain method to find things out.
> Most prominent examples are universities, where professors (and others)
> conduct some sort or research.
>
> These profesors investigate problems of interest by what is called
> 'scientific method'.

And christian priests are humble, poor, neighbour-loving.
But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
could never work.
Science is doing its job differently. A far, far, far more
complicated way.

Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>
>>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
>>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
>>>>>
>>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria.
>>>
>>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself.
>>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological
>>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more
>>> reliable.
>>>
>> Science is not an organisation.
>
> Oh, yes, it is.

Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.

There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science.

But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
conduct science.

I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any
organisation, but conduct science.

Well, maybe, on 'science on ant-scale', but that is still science (at
least meant to be).

>> Science is a certain method to find things out.
>> Most prominent examples are universities, where professors (and others)
>> conduct some sort or research.
>>
>> These profesors investigate problems of interest by what is called
>> 'scientific method'.
>
> And christian priests are humble, poor, neighbour-loving.

Well, some actually are.

> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
> could never work.

Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions.

> Science is doing its job differently. A far, far, far more
> complicated way.
>
Today science is certainly beyond the reach of common mortals. But this
is not a law, but a requirement from the high level, which science has
already reached.

Cooperation of large numbers of amateurs around the globe would
eventually be a possibility. But individuals certainly have next to no
chance at all.

TH

On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 10:10:30 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
> >>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself.
> >>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological
> >>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more
> >>> reliable.
> >>>
> >> Science is not an organisation.
> >
> > Oh, yes, it is.
> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.
>
> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science.
>
> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
> conduct science.
>
> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any
> organisation

Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a
culture?

> > But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
> > methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
> > could never work.
> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions.

I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about
so called "scientific method". It doesn't
work, it never worked, it can't work.
If some method making people unfailiable
demigods existed - why would only science
use it?

> Today science is certainly beyond the reach of common mortals.

Scientists ARE common mortals. Your belief
they're something more (because they have
some "scientific method") is a result of science
made propaganda bullshit.

Am 01.01.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 10:10:30 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>> On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
>>>>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself.
>>>>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological
>>>>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more
>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>
>>>> Science is not an organisation.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, it is.
>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.
>>
>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science.
>>
>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
>> conduct science.
>>
>> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any
>> organisation
>
> Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a
> culture?

Culture is not an organisation.

Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in
a certain region'.

>>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
>>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
>>> could never work.
>> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions.
>
> I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about
> so called "scientific method". It doesn't
> work, it never worked, it can't work.
> If some method making people unfailiable
> demigods existed - why would only science
> use it?

Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to
what scientists actually do.

Usually the philosphical statements of Karl Popper are associated with
'scientific method'.

But we could actually widen the view and include other ways to do
research, too.

>> Today science is certainly beyond the reach of common mortals.
>
> Scientists ARE common mortals. Your belief
> they're something more (because they have
> some "scientific method") is a result of science
> made propaganda bullshit.
>

Ok, Ok...

I called uneducated people 'common mortals'.

They are, of course, not entirely uneducated, but have no knowledge in
that particular science.

For instance in medicine we have professionals and people, who have
little or no knowledge at all. The latter build the group I called
'common mortals'.

TH

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 08:36:02 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.01.2023 um 12:47 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 10:10:30 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 30.12.2022 um 12:58 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>> On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 12:03:25 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 29.12.2022 um 09:48 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 09:34:51 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 22:33 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
> >>>>>>>> parading it is what earns crackpot points.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure, stupid Mike, sure.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> But 'proving wrong' must fulfill scientific criteria.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, no institution ever says plain truth about itself.
> >>>>> Science isn't an exception. The above is an ideological
> >>>>> lie, intended to make science (as institution) more
> >>>>> reliable.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Science is not an organisation.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, yes, it is.
> >> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.
> >>
> >> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science.
> >>
> >> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
> >> conduct science.
> >>
> >> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any
> >> organisation
> >
> > Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a
> > culture?
> Culture is not an organisation.
>
> Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in
> a certain region'.

You're underestimating culture and you're
underestimating science.

> >>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
> >>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
> >>> could never work.
> >> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions.
> >
> > I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about
> > so called "scientific method". It doesn't
> > work, it never worked, it can't work.
> > If some method making people unfailiable
> > demigods existed - why would only science
> > use it?
> Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to
> what scientists actually do.

And, as you can see here, it's far, far away from
Popper's sugar picture.

> For instance in medicine

Medicine. A good example. How is Popper's
"scientific method" there?
What about history? Sociology? Economics?
There is NO method. Just like others, scientists
think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents.
They're even dumber and more arrogant than
common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely).

On 12/30/2022 6:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and
>>>>>>>>> turned it
>>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method,
>>>>>>>> yet it
>>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>>>>>>> world-class physicist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
>>>>>> overlook.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
>>>>> always the same:
>>>>>
>>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
>>>>> and the case is closed.
>>>>
>>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
>>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>>
>>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
>>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>>
>>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>>
>>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second equation is this
>>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>>> moving
>>>>
>>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>>
>>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that
>>>>> movement.
>>>>
>>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
>>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the
>>>> same in
>>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>>
>>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>>
>> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>>
>>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>>
>>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>>> the equation for the  moving system.
>>
>> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
>> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
>> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
>> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
>> is moving relative to K.
>
> Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant
> 'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.

Read the beginning where Einstein introduced the stationary space.
Since Euclidean space has relative motion (see Galileo), this
"stationary space" has to be stationary relative to something. The
unmentioned observer.
>
> This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.

The unmentioned observer, which is stationary in the stationary space.
>
> That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space would
> not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space as
> unmentioned reference.

Einstein did not mention or use any absolute space.
>
> You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would
> make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own
> coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also
> the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.
>
> But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K is
> stationary and system k is moving.

For the unmentioned observer stationary in K.

>>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>>
>> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
>
> No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise unspecified
> point (x, y, z).

Call the unmentioned stationary observer to be at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0).
>
> This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were,
> what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).

He derives it where he derives the Lorentz transformation.

> Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to
> system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what
> is nonsense)
>
> He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were
> created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the other
> also symmetrically in system k.
>
> But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the
> coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of emitter.

What is now called an event in modern physics. A point with coordinates
(x, y, z, t). Events are instantaneous, they don't have the property of
motion. (you need two events for that).

You are going off into the weeds again exactly the same as when you were
whining "there are no plane waves". Just because a real world flash of
light would last a finite (even if incredibly tiny) time doesn't negate
the concept.
>
> This emitter emitts one spherical wave only, which is observed from a
> position stationary in respect to the emitter and from a different
> position moving in respect to the emitter.

And the emitter's physical details are irrelevant, it's the
instantaneous event which matters.
>
> This would cause the so called 'Doppler effect' and a distortion of the
> wave in the case, where the emitter is in relative motion.

That requires two events at minimum where you can compare distances and
times between them. An event is a point with a single value, (x, y, z, t).

>>> IOW: we have the same wave and the same point, but different
>>> coordinates, because we have two different coordinate system. and one
>>> is regarded as stationary and one as moving.
>>
>> It appears you don't understand the concept of relative motion, you
>> consider K as (absolutely) stationary and k as (absolutely) moving. This
>> has been known wrong since Galileo.
>
>
> I didn't, but interpreted Einstein's text that way.

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 17:45:34 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/30/2022 6:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 29.12.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Volney:
> >> On 12/28/2022 2:38 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 28.12.2022 um 05:00 schrieb Volney:
> >>>> On 12/27/2022 3:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and
> >>>>>>>>> turned it
> >>>>>>>>> away from the scientific method.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method,
> >>>>>>>> yet it
> >>>>>>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
> >>>>>>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
> >>>>>>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
> >>>>>>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
> >>>>>>> world-class physicist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to
> >>>>>> overlook.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> >>>>> always the same:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
> >>>>> and the case is closed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "errors" were refuted because all of them that anyone has looked at
> >>>> were misunderstandings or errors by yourself, not in the paper.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
> >>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
> >>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
> >>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
> >>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
> >>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
> >>>>>
> >>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second equation is this
> >>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
> >>>>> moving
> >>>>
> >>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
> >>>>
> >>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that
> >>>>> movement.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial frames, K
> >>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the
> >>>> same in
> >>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
> >>>
> >>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
> >>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
> >>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
> >>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
> >>
> >> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
> >>>
> >>> This was actually the topic of §3.
> >>>
> >>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
> >>> the equation for the moving system.
> >>
> >> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
> >> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
> >> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
> >> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
> >> is moving relative to K.
> >
> > Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant
> > 'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.
> Read the beginning where Einstein introduced the stationary space.
> Since Euclidean space has relative motion (see Galileo), this
> "stationary space" has to be stationary relative to something. The
> unmentioned observer.

While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
of Einstein is even more funny.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

<SNIP>

> While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
> any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
> of Einstein is even more funny.

Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed
v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.

Einstein: It is perceived as following MY GEODESIC.

Rational people: Fuck off you both. Relativity is META-PHYSICS, PSEUDO-SCIENCE. Any of them.

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 18:08:31 UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> > While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
> > any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
> > of Einstein is even more funny.
> Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed
> v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.

An observer is a complicated thingie. Too complicated
for puny formulas of an idiot physicist.

Am 02.01.2023 um 10:00 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>>>>>> Science is not an organisation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, yes, it is.
>>>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.
>>>>
>>>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science.
>>>>
>>>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
>>>> conduct science.
>>>>
>>>> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any
>>>> organisation
>>>
>>> Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a
>>> culture?
>> Culture is not an organisation.
>>
>> Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in
>> a certain region'.
>
> You're underestimating culture and you're
> underestimating science.
>
>>>>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
>>>>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
>>>>> could never work.
>>>> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about
>>> so called "scientific method". It doesn't
>>> work, it never worked, it can't work.
>>> If some method making people unfailiable
>>> demigods existed - why would only science
>>> use it?
>> Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to
>> what scientists actually do.
>
> And, as you can see here, it's far, far away from
> Popper's sugar picture.

Well, ok.

Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science.

In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave
according to this ideal.

But that is not the fault of Popper.

>
>> For instance in medicine
>
> Medicine. A good example. How is Popper's
> "scientific method" there?

We have two branches, which are both called 'medicine' and of which one
is not a science but a business.

Let's take the non-profit-part-of-medicine (supposed there is any) and
talk about that.

'The-for-profit-part-of-medicine' gets then excluded from science and
follows other rules, which are more or less economic.

> What about history? Sociology? Economics?
> There is NO method. Just like others, scientists
> think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents.
> They're even dumber and more arrogant than
> common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely).
>
'Scientists' are people, that conduct science.

But they are not scientists, just because they wear a white coat.

TH

On 1/2/2023 12:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
>> any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
>> of Einstein is even more funny.
>
> Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed
> v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.

No illusion. For the train rider, the ball really does go straight up
and down. For the person outside the train, the ball really does go in a
parabola.
>
> Einstein:

You can't even handle Galileo! Einstein is WAY beyond your abilities!

> Rational people: Fuck off you both. Relativity is META-PHYSICS, PSEUDO-SCIENCE. Any of them.

You are projecting your own insanities onto "rational people".

Am 02.01.2023 um 17:45 schrieb Volney:

>>>>>> But I can provide something new for you to defend:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
>>>>>> sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
>>>>>> Co-ordinates ...'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both
>>>>>> describe a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just
>>>>>> attained by this wave,...'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second equation is this
>>>>>> ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the same point in coordinates from k.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
>>>>>> moving
>>>>>
>>>>> Only moving relative to K. Remember, motion is always relative.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that
>>>>>> movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is there to 'compensate'? Both are equations in inertial
>>>>> frames, K
>>>>> and k. Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the
>>>>> same in
>>>>> all inertial frames. Including K and k.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a certain point ('.. just attained by the wave...') with
>>>> certain coordinates -like e.g.(1,2,3) - in system K and now want the
>>>> coordinates of that point in coordinates based on system k, you need
>>>> to conduct a so called 'coordinate transformation'.
>>>
>>> Only if you need to swap from one frame to the other.
>>>>
>>>> This was actually the topic of §3.
>>>>
>>>> Now I would expect an influence of movement upon the coordinates in
>>>> the equation for the moving system.
>>>
>>> What movement? From frame k, frame k is stationary (tautology) but frame
>>> K is moving. Do remember "moving system" is essentially a NAME since the
>>> original frame K is described as stationary (relative to an unspecified
>>> original observer), so k is moving wrt this original observer because it
>>> is moving relative to K.
>>
>> Einstein have not mentioned the observer in system K. Instead he meant
>> 'stationary' as stationary in respect to the Euclidean space.
>
> Read the beginning where Einstein introduced the stationary space.
> Since Euclidean space has relative motion (see Galileo), this
> "stationary space" has to be stationary relative to something. The
> unmentioned observer.
>>
>> This served as unmentioned 'background' like Newton's absolute space.
>
> The unmentioned observer, which is stationary in the stationary space.

The problem in relativity is, that EVERYTHING needs to be related to
something else, even space.

But in respect to what is 'stationary space' stationary?

So: 'stationary' gets undefined, if nothing can serve as (external)
'anchor', upon which vectors or positions could be based.

But 'stationary space' can only reference to 'stationary space', because
there ain't anything else, what we could use as reference.

That would be no problem, if that 'stationary space' could be regarded
as absolute space.

But Einstein could not assume that, because he had already excluded
absolute space.

>> That contradicted his own statement, that Newton's absolute space
>> would not exist. But that did not hinder Einstein to use such a space
>> as unmentioned reference.
>
> Einstein did not mention or use any absolute space.

Sure, he meant 'relative space'.

But in that case he would need a relation to something.

The problem is, that only Newton's absolute space could reference to
itself and Einstein already rejected its existence.

So, Einstein needed a reference point, that would not need a reference
to itself. But that would violate the principle above.

>> You are in fact right, that the space of the coordinate system K would
>> make most sense, if the observer rests in the center of his own
>> coordinate system K. And with a change to the coordinate system k also
>> the observer's position would change, hence k would be stationary, too.
>>
>> But that wasn't Einstein's setting. He therefore meant, that system K
>> is stationary and system k is moving.
>
> For the unmentioned observer stationary in K.

The observer could be placed in the center of K. That would also be
useful to 'anchor' system K.

Other places are less obvious, hence we could leave it that way.

>>>> This is required, because the coordinates of the very same physical
>>>> point in coordinates k had to be derived, which have some other
>>>> coordinates in measures of system K, which is regarded as non-moving.
>>>
>>> Relative to the unmentioned observer in the original description of K.
>>
>> No. The point in system K was a certain fixed but otherwise
>> unspecified point (x, y, z).
>
> Call the unmentioned stationary observer to be at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0).

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because the observer should be placed there.

No, because (x, y, z) in Einstein's text meant a point 'just attained by
the wave...', what cannot possibly be the zero-spot, because at the zero
spot there is also the emitter.

>> This same point in space has also coordinates in system k, which were,
>> what Einstein wanted to derive (but didn't).
>
> He derives it where he derives the Lorentz transformation.

Actually he didn't derive anything, because he exchanged only letters.

>> Now Einstein wrote, that a coordinate transformation from system K to
>> system k would be created by exchanging Latin for Greek letters. (what
>> is nonsense)
>>
>> He also seemed to assume, that in his setting two spherical waves were
>> created, from which one symmetrically expands in system K and the
>> other also symmetrically in system k.
>>
>> But that was wrong, because the waves did not originate from the
>> coordinate systems (whether moving or not), but from some kind of
>> emitter.
>
> What is now called an event in modern physics. A point with coordinates
> (x, y, z, t). Events are instantaneous, they don't have the property of
> motion. (you need two events for that).

??

The system k moves in K, because that was Einstein's setting.
Since the emitter was placed in the center of k, the emitter moves in K.

That movement is not an event, because the emitter of a wave is a
material device, which has a position and a state of movement.

A certain part of the emitted waves could be treated like an event,
however, if the duration of the event is set to zero.

But that is not quite, how waves are created or meant to be, because a
wave without an extension in time is no longer a wave.

....

TH

On Tuesday, 3 January 2023 at 08:14:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 12:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:49:58 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >> While Galileo's fairy tales of "obserwers" were lacking
> >> any contact with the reality - the inconsistent mumble
> >> of Einstein is even more funny.
> >
> > Galileo: The observer on the ground PERCEIVES that a ball being trowed up by a person in a train that passes at constant speed
> > v, in a path that is normal to the observer line of sight has a PARABOLIC TRAJECTORY, but it's an ILLUSION.
> No illusion. For the train rider, the ball really does go straight up
> and down.

Bullshit, stupid Mike. For a train rider - the train is going
to London, not London is going to train. Every train rider
knows his train is in motion, together with the ball and
himself. Your relativity is completely delusional for 400
years, not just for 100.

> You can't even handle Galileo!

Galileo had no clue. An observer is a complicated thingie,
an observation is a complicated process. Too complicated
for Galileo, too complicated for Einstein, too complicated
for stupid Mike.

Am 03.01.2023 um 07:59 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 02.01.2023 um 10:00 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>
>>>>>>> Science is not an organisation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, yes, it is.
>>>>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct
>>>>> science.
>>>>>
>>>>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
>>>>> conduct science.
>>>>>
....

>> What about history? Sociology? Economics?
>> There is NO method. Just like others, scientists
>> think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents.
>> They're even dumber and more arrogant than
>> common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely).
>>
> 'Scientists' are people, that conduct science.
>
> But they are not scientists, just because they wear a white coat.
>

The confusion stems actually from these white coats!

Many academcial researchers wear such coats and that's why these coats
are actually a sign, that the person should be regarded as a scientist.

But that is, of course, nonsense, because science could be conducted by
people wearing any kind of clothing.

Also other attributes like e.g a PhD or another academic title are not a
sign, that someone is conducting science.

Science is defined by topic and method, not by the coat.

TH

On Tuesday, 3 January 2023 at 08:00:03 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 02.01.2023 um 10:00 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>
> >>>>>> Science is not an organisation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, yes, it is.
> >>>> Science is a way to do research and not an organisation.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are many organisations, however, which are created to conduct science.
> >>>>
> >>>> But these organisations are by no means the only entities, which can
> >>>> conduct science.
> >>>>
> >>>> I, for instance, am only one single person and not connected to any
> >>>> organisation
> >>>
> >>> Aren't you connected to some culture? What is a
> >>> culture?
> >> Culture is not an organisation.
> >>
> >> Think about the meaning of 'culture' as 'set of habits and practises in
> >> a certain region'.
> >
> > You're underestimating culture and you're
> > underestimating science.
> >
> >>>>> But, being an experienced proffesional of algorithms,
> >>>>> methods and so - I'm assuring you: scientific method
> >>>>> could never work.
> >>>> Usually you are right. But every rule has exceptions.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not talking of a rule, I'm talking about
> >>> so called "scientific method". It doesn't
> >>> work, it never worked, it can't work.
> >>> If some method making people unfailiable
> >>> demigods existed - why would only science
> >>> use it?
> >> Well, maybe we should widen the definition of 'scientific method' to
> >> what scientists actually do.
> >
> > And, as you can see here, it's far, far away from
> > Popper's sugar picture.
> Well, ok.
>
> Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science.
>
> In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave
> according to this ideal.
>
> But that is not the fault of Popper.

If a picture intended to reflect the reality doesn't
do it - it's the fault of its maker.
But if a picture intended to be a sugar propaganda
bullshit doesn't reflect the reality - it is not the fault
of its maker.
The choice is yours.
Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
could never work. But science as it really is - can.

> >
> >> For instance in medicine
> >
> > Medicine. A good example. How is Popper's
> > "scientific method" there?
> We have two branches, which are both called 'medicine' and of which one
> is not a science but a business.
>
> Let's take the non-profit-part-of-medicine (supposed there is any) and
> talk about that.

Let's do it. Experiments? There are. How about
numeric predictions? Precise measurements?
Falsifications?

> > What about history? Sociology? Economics?
> > There is NO method. Just like others, scientists
> > think, invent, wave arms, spit at the opponents.
> > They're even dumber and more arrogant than
> > common folk (exceptions happen, but rarely).
> >
> 'Scientists' are people, that conduct science.

Mostly their ranks and positions define them,
and partially their subjects. There is no method.

Am 06.01.2023 um 08:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>>> Popper's sugar picture.
>> Well, ok.
>>
>> Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science.
>>
>> In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave
>> according to this ideal.
>>
>> But that is not the fault of Popper.
>
> If a picture intended to reflect the reality doesn't
> do it - it's the fault of its maker.
> But if a picture intended to be a sugar propaganda
> bullshit doesn't reflect the reality - it is not the fault
> of its maker.
> The choice is yours.
> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
> could never work. But science as it really is - can.

Popper was a philosopher.

These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.

TH

On Monday, 9 January 2023 at 08:57:23 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.01.2023 um 08:36 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>
> >>> Popper's sugar picture.
> >> Well, ok.
> >>
> >> Popper was a philosopher and painted an ideal picture of science.
> >>
> >> In the real world most instituitions related to science do not behave
> >> according to this ideal.
> >>
> >> But that is not the fault of Popper.
> >
> > If a picture intended to reflect the reality doesn't
> > do it - it's the fault of its maker.
> > But if a picture intended to be a sugar propaganda
> > bullshit doesn't reflect the reality - it is not the fault
> > of its maker.
> > The choice is yours.
> > Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
> > could never work. But science as it really is - can.
> Popper was a philosopher.
>
> These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.

Most scientists aren't either.
As for Popper - for his "description of science" he only analyzed
one example - The Shit. After physicists rejected common sense
they needed a theory telling them they're not insane maniacs but
true scientists - and Popper gave it.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
>> could never work. But science as it really is - can.
>
> Popper was a philosopher.
> These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.

here more proof the khazars are nazis.

The ADL issues statement declaring Ukraine’s Azov Battalion no longer ‘far-right’
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/08/the-adl-issues-statement-declaring-ukraines-azov-battalion-no-longer-far-right/
In the November interview, Boneface admitted to taking photographs of Ukrainian fighters “posing with the corpses of a lynched pregnant woman and a man they said was her husband” for a video entitled “Kikes get the rope.” He also claimed to have appeared in a video depicting a botched crucifixion.

unbelievable, they kill everybody, including some of them self.

Am 21.12.2022 um 22:10 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 21:07:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/21/2022 1:25 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> A lot of us who (like me) are too cheap to pay the (admittedly
>>>> modest) fee for full newsgroup access using a "real" newsgroup
>>>> reader instead use Google Groups, despite the inferior user interface.
>>>> Newsgroup snobs such as Thomas Lahn automatically dismiss
>>>> people using Google Groups as being hardly distinguishable from
>>>> crackpots.
>>>
>>> I'm with you. After joining various Google Groups I learned that some others used these "real" newsreaders, but I don't know anything about them. What can they do for me that I can't do now? I mean, all I do is read posts and sometimes respond to them... what am I missing?
>> The big one is killfiles. Giggle Groups doesn't have them.
>
> Sure, we could KF idiots insisting that ISO of 196-ies
> is a consequence of Newtonian physics and some
> "Newton mode". But what for?
>

A VERY big advantage of the USeNet is the restriction to ASCII or
possibly unicode.

But this saves us from tons of problems of html forums and restricts the
author to actually write and not post large pictures.

If the UseNet would allow multi-media content, it would become for all
practical purposes unusable, because the messages would inflate in size
by many orders of magnitude.

Unbelievable large masses of junc would be dumped here, if people were
allowed to do that.

The restriction to ascii is therefore a very good thing.

TH