https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536

*******************************************************************
"Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.

I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:

▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.

▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames..

▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)

. In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.

Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".

*******************************************************************

I wonder why, also.

And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
relativity.

After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century..

These persons were awarded twice:

1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.

They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.

But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
to hold the prize back?

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:32:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
>
> *******************************************************************
> "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.
>
> I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
>
> ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.
>
> ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
>
> ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)
>
> . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
>
> Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> I wonder why, also.
>
> And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> relativity.
>
> After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
>
> These persons were awarded twice:
>
> 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
>
> They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
>
> But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> to hold the prize back?

Actually, this guy should have proposed more Einstein's Laws:

- Law of Time Duration with Height: The higher the place, the faster clocks run.
- Law of Gravitational Red-Shifting of Light: Heavier gravity make light reddish.
- Law of Gravitational Light Deflection: Massive celestial bodies make light depart from rectilinear trajectories.
- Law of Space Curved by Gravity: In planetary systems, curved space by gravity causes the planet's perihelion to drift positively.
- Law of Gravitational Waves: Sudden catastrophic changes in celestial bodies causes traversal ripples of spacetime to propagate at c.
- Law of Black Holes: Slow merging of massive celestial bodies causes spacetime to break, time to freeze and undetectable blackness.
- Law of Ever Expanding Universe: Universe expands forever, but spacetime stretching doesn't affect the constancy of c.

There are more...

El viernes, 17 de febrero de 2023 a las 17:32:55 UTC-6, Richard Hertz escribió:
> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
>
> *******************************************************************
> "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.
>
> I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
>
> ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.
>
> ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
>
> ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)
>
> . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
>
> Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> I wonder why, also.
>
> And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> relativity.
>
> After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
>
> These persons were awarded twice:
>
> 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
>
> They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
>
> But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> to hold the prize back?
Simply because since the 20th century scientists stopped calling new discoveries "laws". The preferred term now is "model" or "principle", laws do not exist intrinsically but they're part of a model created by humans. But there is an "Einstein equation", the EFE, which are the key equations of general relativity, which in the older use of the term, you can say they're "laws" in a certain sense, just as Maxwell's equations or Navier-Stokes equations.

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
>
> *******************************************************************
> "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.
>
> I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
>
> ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.

Gravity decelerates. Physical laws should apply everywhere since the beginning.
Science cannot give any example of steady speed not subject to a change.
If you believe in inertial frames then give an example. And I will show you
how it is not. The rule is unsteady speed and order.

>
> ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.

How is slow light measured?
>
> ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)

The sum of energy comes from the atoms total particle energy.
Light energy is also stored in the atom with the particle... Both energies add...

>
> . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
>
> Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".

Einstein's the ancient. He said himself he did not have the unified field....
>
> *******************************************************************
>

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
>
> *******************************************************************
> "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.

Excellent points to consider, Richard.
>
> I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
>
This one is patently false:

> ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.

Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion is only true in the rest frame of the solar system.

Anybody need proof/demonstration?
>
> ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
>
> ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)
>
> . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
>
> Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> I wonder why, also.
>
> And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> relativity.
>
> After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
>
> These persons were awarded twice:
>
> 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
>
> They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
>
> But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> to hold the prize back?

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 5:56:01 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> Anybody need proof/demonstration?

Of your and Dick's imbecility? Not necessary, you two guys convinced everybody.

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 9:34:31 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> - Law of Black Holes: Slow merging of massive celestial bodies causes spacetime to break, time to freeze and undetectable blackness.

I don't know why but, from the list above, I find this one particularly funny. Maybe the embedded sarcasm?

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws....

Your problem here, Richard, is that you are in no way a physicist and you never will be... and Einstein does not need your help in any way, shape or form... he has been doing just fine without you for more than a century.

As always, you don't know what you don't know, and anyone with 2 functioning neurons can see this for themselves.

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 05:42:55 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws...
>
> Your problem here, Richard, is that you are in no way a physicist and you never will be...

Your problem here, on the other hand, is that
you are a physicist. i.e. a brainwashed fanatic
idiot proud of being illogical.

> and Einstein does not need your help in any way, shape or form... he has been doing just fine without you for more than a century.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by that poor halfbrain GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

The equations of general relativity are universally known
as 'The Einstein Equations'.
[-]
> And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> relativity.
>
> After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
>
> These persons were awarded twice:
>
> 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
>
> They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
>
> But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> to hold the prize back?

They really didn't want to,
and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
from almost the entire physics community,
If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
if Einstein hadn't been given one first,

Jan

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:42:55 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws...

I didn't propose that, fucking illiterate yet dyslexic asshole!

R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, proposed that, in 2007.

And I quoted it, separated by ****************************************************

But, as you are a pretentious self-entitled relativist, YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS USUAL.

You didn't care to read the link that I provided, but had to open your muzzle with nonsense.

Why no Einstein’s laws?
Richard W. Kadel, (rwkadel@lbl.gov) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, US
Physics Today 60, 1, 12 (2007)

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
> Your problem here, Richard, is that you are in no way a physicist and you never will be... and Einstein does not need your help in any way, shape or form... he has been doing just fine without you for more than a century.
>
> As always, you don't know what you don't know, and anyone with 2 functioning neurons can see this for themselves.

KEEP DIGGING A HOLE AND STAY THERE, ASSHOLE.

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 6:31:26 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> They really didn't want to,
> and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
> from almost the entire physics community,
> If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
> Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
> if Einstein hadn't been given one first,

Niels Bohr would have been his soul to the devil for a Nobel Prize.

This charlatan (he lived by talking, talking and talking) preserved his future support from the Danish government
due to the prestige of this Nobel Prize.

He lived the rest of his life as a promoter of scientific research, funded by public money, at his Institute of Theoretical Physics
at the University of Copenhagen. Inviting scientists there, at no cost for them, to discuss for weeks about theoretical physics,
made worldwide famous such "Bohr's Hotel".

He needed 1 fucking hour to explain a 5 minutes wording, because he was a total inept to deliver coherent thoughts.

He gained fame because of Rutherford, who chopped his 1913 unintelligible paper on Balmer's series, Planck and H atom IN HALF.

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:34:31 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:32:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> > "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.
> >
> > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
> >
> > ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.
> >
> > ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
> >
> > ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)
> >
> > . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
> >
> > Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".
> >
> > *******************************************************************
> >
> > I wonder why, also.
> >
> > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > relativity.
> >
> > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
> >
> > These persons were awarded twice:
> >
> > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> >
> > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> >
> > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > to hold the prize back?
> Actually, this guy should have proposed more Einstein's Laws:
>
> - Law of Time Duration with Height: The higher the place, the faster clocks run.

It's not that clocks run faster (they run at the same rate) but that there is more
time at higher places (speaking very loosely), so the clock has to "tick through" more
"stuff".

> - Law of Gravitational Light Deflection: Massive celestial bodies make light depart from rectilinear trajectories.

Energy-momentum in general, not just mass.

> - Law of Space Curved by Gravity: In planetary systems, curved space by gravity causes the planet's perihelion to drift positively.

There is no need to list thos separately. They all follow from properties of the spherically
symmetric metric.

> - Law of Gravitational Waves: Sudden catastrophic changes in celestial bodies causes traversal ripples of spacetime to propagate at c.

Same thing.

> - Law of Black Holes: Slow merging of massive celestial bodies causes spacetime to break, time to freeze and undetectable blackness.

This is most likely incorrect and a result of GR being a classical theory. Maxwell's theory suffers
from similar oddities. For now there is no good replacement, so singularities are grudgingly accepted.
OTOH the horizons are likely close to being correctly modelled. We'll see.

> - Law of Ever Expanding Universe: Universe expands forever, but spacetime stretching doesn't affect the constancy of c.

This is not really known 100%. The Webb telescope is throwing some Spaniard(*) in
the works.

(*)courtesy of John Lennon

--
Jan

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The equations of general relativity are universally known
> as 'The Einstein Equations'.
> [-]
> > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > relativity.
> >
> > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
> >
> > These persons were awarded twice:
> >
> > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> >
> > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> >
> > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > to hold the prize back?
> They really didn't want to,
> and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
> from almost the entire physics community,
> If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
> Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
> if Einstein hadn't been given one first,

My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
community until the Compton experiment.

It's also very interesting to find out what went on before 1905, it's VERY
different from what most people think.

--
Jan

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The equations of general relativity are universally known
> > as 'The Einstein Equations'.
> > [-]
> > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > > relativity.
> > >
> > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
> > >
> > > These persons were awarded twice:
> > >
> > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> > >
> > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> > >
> > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > > to hold the prize back?
> > They really didn't want to,
> > and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
> > from almost the entire physics community,
> > If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
> > Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
> > if Einstein hadn't been given one first,
> My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
> community until the Compton experiment.
>
> It's also very interesting to find out what went on before 1905, it's VERY
> different from what most people think.
>
> --
> Jan

- First came Hertz, proving Maxwell and inventing the perennial dipole antenna, making electromagnetism useful and Maxwell ethernal.
- Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length contraction and local time.
- Then came Heaviside, creating the basis of electric engineering.
- Then came Wien, opening the door to quantum physics with his "law of displacement". making possible to measure high temperatures.
- Then came Roentgen with the discovery of X-rays, opening the door to modern medicine.
- Then came Becquerel, discovering radioactivity and opening the door to sources of fast particle and nuclear medicine. Curie followed.
- Then came J.J. Thomson with his "discovery" of electrons, from the cathode rays (known for decades).
- Then came Gerber, demonstrating the speed of gravity over the Mercury's perihelion advance phenomenon.
- Then came Planck, creating the Law of Radiation in Black Body Cavities, the concept of the quantum of action h and quantum physics.
- Then came Rutherford and Soddy, with the discovery of alpha and beta rays, opening the door to the nuclear physics and instrumentation.
- The buzz term was "electrodynamics", playing with motion of electric charges. Abraham, Lorentz, Hassenhorl, Poincaré.

- Then, a cretin plagiarist hypnotized the scientific community with his idiotic pseudo-science, and physics started to die.

- Only applied physics, through engineering and industrial enterprises, saved the world of being stuck in unrealistic metaphysics.

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 13:57:49 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:34:31 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:32:55 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
> > >
> > > *******************************************************************
> > > "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.
> > >
> > > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
> > >
> > > ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.
> > >
> > > ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
> > >
> > > ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)
> > >
> > > . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
> > >
> > > Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".
> > >
> > > *******************************************************************
> > >
> > > I wonder why, also.
> > >
> > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > > relativity.
> > >
> > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
> > >
> > > These persons were awarded twice:
> > >
> > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> > >
> > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> > >
> > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > > to hold the prize back?
> > Actually, this guy should have proposed more Einstein's Laws:
> >
> > - Law of Time Duration with Height: The higher the place, the faster clocks run.
> It's not that clocks run faster (they run at the same rate) but that there is more
> time at higher places (speaking very loosely), so the clock has to "tick through" more
> "stuff".

Sorry, trash, anyone can check GPS, they run 9 192 631 774
compared to 9 192 631 770. So, take your moronic bullshit
and put it straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where it
belongs.

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The equations of general relativity are universally known
> > as 'The Einstein Equations'.
> > [-]
> > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > > relativity.
> > >
> > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX centur

y.
> > >
> > > These persons were awarded twice:
> > >
> > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> > >
> > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physi
cs)
> > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> > >
> > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > > to hold the prize back?
> > They really didn't want to,
> > and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
> > from almost the entire physics community,
> > If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
> > Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
> > if Einstein hadn't been given one first,
>
> My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
> community until the Compton experiment.

Huh? Your impression is quite wrong.
Einstein became very well known almost immediately after 1905.
(in a select circle)
He became well-know among those who mattered when
he met them all personally at the first Solvay conference. (1911)
By that time people were practically begging him
to accept a professorate at their institution.
He became a public figure in 1919,
with the publication of Eddington's results.

The Nobel committee caused a complete scandal in physics
by first giving the 1920 Nobel to a complete nobody
for the virtue of not being named Albert Einstein,
(to the great surprise of the recipient)
and next passing over the 1921 prize.
(for lack of a suitable candidate)

With this the Nobel committee had thoroughly discredited itself.
We know how the situation was rectified with the lame compromise
that actually came about.
By 1923 (Compton) no serious physicist in the world
needed to be convinced anymore,

Jan

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 6:32:55 AM UTC+7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536
>
> *******************************************************************
> "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory.
>
> I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:
>
> ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.
>
> ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
>
> ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²)
>
> . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
>
> Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity".
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> I wonder why, also.
>
> And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> relativity.
>
> After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
>
> These persons were awarded twice:
>
> 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
>
> They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
>
> But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> to hold the prize back?

Because they are not Einstein's laws. If you raise the measuring apparatus that defines a meter in terms of wavelength by distance h, the meter is the same, the clock speed is the same locally, and the frequency is the same. But it is obvious to Einstein's "remote" observer that light increases in wavelength (redshift) in proportion to ambient mass; therefore, Einstein's meter has grown in length and the time it takes (clock speed) to reach end to end is farther and therefore the clock must run faster. It doesn't take an Albert Einstein to figure that out and the notion that relativity predicts such a thing entirely false and a vicious crime against the good name and works of Newton. Einstein's equations are fakes. The phenomenon of redshift is a simple observation, not a law. But you're right. Nobel prizes are not about real science anymore, anyway, so then why didn't it happen? Ya got me.

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 23:24:05 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The equations of general relativity are universally known
> > > as 'The Einstein Equations'.
> > > [-]
> > > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > > > relativity.
> > > >
> > > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX centur
>
> y.
> > > >
> > > > These persons were awarded twice:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> > > >
> > > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physi
> cs)
> > > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> > > >
> > > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > > > to hold the prize back?
> > > They really didn't want to,
> > > and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
> > > from almost the entire physics community,
> > > If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
> > > Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
> > > if Einstein hadn't been given one first,
> >
> > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
> > community until the Compton experiment.
> Huh? Your impression is quite wrong.
> Einstein became very well known almost immediately after 1905.
> (in a select circle)
> He became well-know among those who mattered when
> he met them all personally at the first Solvay conference. (1911)
> By that time people were practically begging him
> to accept a professorate at their institution.
> He became a public figure in 1919,
> with the publication of Eddington's results.
>
> The Nobel committee caused a complete scandal in physics
> by first giving the 1920 Nobel to a complete nobody
> for the virtue of not being named Albert Einstein,

Some didn't worship your idiot guru!!!!
How scandalous!!!

On February 18, JanPB wrote:
> My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
> community until the Compton experiment.

https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/25/archives/a-new-physics-based-on-einstein-sir-oliver-lodge-says-it-will.html

And, for Mr. Hertz:

https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/16/archives/dont-worry-over-new-light-theory-physicists-agree-that-it-can-be.html

--
Rich

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:01:38 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> On February 18, JanPB wrote:
> > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
> > community until the Compton experiment.
> https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/25/archives/a-new-physics-based-on-einstein-sir-oliver-lodge-says-it-will.html
>
> And, for Mr. Hertz:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/16/archives/dont-worry-over-new-light-theory-physicists-agree-that-it-can-be.html
>
> --
> Rich

Thanks. That's what I've been sustaining here for years: Newton rules and relativity is WORTHLESS, void of any practical applications,
either in 1919 or 2023.

But relativists EAT and PROFIT with the importance of THEIR CULT OF NOTHINGNESS. Let them be.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:12:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Thanks. That's the imbecility what I've been sustaining here for years

Keep "sustaining", Dick.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:12:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Thanks. That's the imbecility what I've been sustaining here for years
>
> Keep "sustaining" Dick
--------------------------------------------
Non illegitimi carborundum, Mr. Hertz. This https://bit.ly/3xKsc0a is not a link I recommend, but represents the general way that Dingle's objections to the twin paradox were treated by the science community and emulated by the following crop of little Einsteins. So, you get nineteen pages (and many more by the same author in other links) that amount to a torrential attack on Dingle's mental aptitude mixed with logical inconsistencies, poor math, and numerous examples of other scientists lamenting that Dingle simply fails to understand simultaneity and special relativity. The writer (author unstated) is impeccably articulate and good at juggling trivial equations so that readers are too confused by specious math, convoluted logic and complex metaphysics to object.
The author fails to mention Louis Essen. Essen was at the top of his game during that period and did not misunderstand Einstein. He was the first to find an accurate measure of light speed and later invented the atomic clock used to validate Einstein's "time dilation." He very strongly objected to the use of his clock, however, having correctly called out Einstein's relativity as a swindle. He cites a series of logical contradictions and deceptive math. All the king's horses and men praise Einstein, but in the view of a real scientist who truly understands the correct use of math and logic, Einstein was the crook he was. Nobody in this group can hold a candle to Essen, or even solve a simple integration problem. Nobody here is qualified to argue Essen, so Essen has my approval, not just because he would know, but because I see the same things quite clearly and do not misunderstand simultaneity, which is not relative but absolutely scientifically absolute.

So, I'll limit my example to the first page of his attack on Dingle that coincides with my question to Denny Lee in my 1972 physics class. "If the first postulate of relativity is that it is arbitrary which "inertial frame" is in motion and which at rest, then why shouldn't the stay at home twin age less instead?" Denny was a real showman and never lacked a good answer, but all he could come up with is that it had to do with acceleration and deceleration issues outside the scope of our class. Try outside the scope of the problem presented. But the TP presented by Einstein does not feature acceleration because it is a fraud as Essen rightly pointed out.

The author writes, "In 1972, just as Dingle's book was about to be published, he engaged in one more debate, this time with Professor Ray Lyttleton, in the “letters to the editor” section of The Times. In his final letter, Dingle presented his “irrefutable proof” as follows:" To be concise, Dingle's letter only rephrases my comment to Denny. "How can clock A and clock B both run more slowly than each other?" The author's answer is that Dingle notes that the derivative of t with respect to t' in one frame moving at relative velocity v and constant x to be the algebraic inverse of the partial derivative t' with respect to t, "which of course is false." Thus Dingle is in fact missing his faculties. You can read the rest yourself, but let's chew on this bit. NOWHERE in Dingle's letter is there any mention of a derivative or math expression. Dingle simply poses Einstein's idea as manifestly absurd as did Essen and any other sane human being. The author's dialogue is grammatically correct, but his argument not mathematically relevant. It is only made to astound and confuse, just like Einstein's general relativity equation purporting to account for the difference in g at different elevations. He then proceeds to put a great many more words in Dingle's mouth and shows how the Lorentz transformations prove mathematically that clocks in frame B move more slowly than in A and why Dingle is wrong.
But Dingle was not wrong. The Lorentz equations fail to address the problem that it is not possible to compare clocks without one frame or the other accelerating or decelerating, either of which jiggers the variables in the Lorentz equations. Our anonymous author is the one whose assertions are bizarre, not Dingle's. If frame A slows at the same rate that frame B accelerates to the point where they meet, the two clocks will not differ, the fantasies of Einstein and all the world's greatest scientists and army of little Einsteins notwithstanding. However, if only one frame changes velocity, the ratio between time the two time intervals can be expressed as 1/(1-v2/c2), an equation easily derived from the phenomenon of redshift and change in velocity due to gravitational potential. If you can't verify this fact for yourself, this subject is out of your league and you should shut your trap, though I know you won't.

The twin paradox is a deliberate swindle as Essen rightly pointed out. The Lorentz expression for the ratio of the two time intervals is given as 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 by Einstein. The radical in the denominator isn't an error, but one of many tricks used to ignore the source of the equation being the change in clock speed owed to deceleration, 1/(1-v2/c2). Note that there is no possibility of devising an experiment where there could be a difference between (1-v2/c2)1/2 and 1/(1-v2/c2) greater than an experimental error, so Einstein's deception would be impossible to confirm as long as changes in velocity are ignored.

Your daddy was a fake.

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:53:31 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:31:26 AM UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The equations of general relativity are universally known
> > > as 'The Einstein Equations'.
> > > [-]
> > > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for
> > > > relativity.
> > > >
> > > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922.
> > > > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century.
> > > >
> > > > These persons were awarded twice:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart.
> > > > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart.
> > > > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart.
> > > > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart.
> > > >
> > > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics)
> > > > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace.
> > > >
> > > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee
> > > > to hold the prize back?
> > > They really didn't want to,
> > > and they gave him his first Nobel prize only because of immense pressure
> > > from almost the entire physics community,
> > > If not, it might have come to a boycot of the Nobel prizes.
> > > Niels Bohr for example wouldn't have accepted his Nobel prize
> > > if Einstein hadn't been given one first,
> > My impression is that Einstein didn't really got famous in the physics
> > community until the Compton experiment.
> >
> > It's also very interesting to find out what went on before 1905, it's VERY
> > different from what most people think.
> >
> > --
> > Jan

> - Then came Voigt, inventing relativity, gamma factor, length contraction and local time.

Voigt didn't invent relativity just like Laplace didn't invent the Schwarzschild radius.
>
> - Then, a cretin plagiarist hypnotized the scientific community with his idiotic pseudo-science, and physics started to die.

Nope. You simply don't know what went on before Einstein regarding electrodynamics and
aether, and you don't understand Einstein's theory.

A trait that's common to cranks like you is that whenever they hit an obstacle, they
blame everyone and everything for it except themselves. They want to cheat and
acquire knowledge without doing any honest work (the word "honest" is important
because it's easy to spend a lot of time and effort in a useless fashion - hence the
institution of teachers: Bach had teachers, Beethoven had teachers, Newton had
teachers, etc.

Agasin, see a doctor, your obsession with Einstein is weird.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:51:50 AM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:16:20 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:12:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks. That's the imbecility what I've been sustaining here for years
> >
> > Keep "sustaining" Dick
> --------------------------------------------

> But Dingle was not wrong.

Actually, he was. Keep it up, dumbass.