On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 15:18:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> It is the same with the theory of relativity, we will say if a man leaves
> for 30 years in the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c, he will come back
> aged 18.

No, we won't. You're free to say it yourself, of course.

Le 03/03/2023 à 15:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 15:18:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> It is the same with the theory of relativity, we will say if a man leaves
>> for 30 years in the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c, he will come back
>> aged 18.
>
> No, we won't. You're free to say it yourself, of course.

In relativistic science as elsewhere, there are two possible deviations.

Accept everything considerately, deny everything ideologically.

The good example is that of the guitarist.

If he does not stretch his string, the guitar will produce a low and
unpleasant sound.

If he stretches it too much, it breaks.

It is therefore often necessary to seek the happy medium.

Overly strict parents suffocate, overly lax parents confuse.

It is the same in the theory of relativity, it is necessary, as you do, to
criticize this cold monster.

But you have to do it intelligently, and not throw out all the bathwater.

Your criticism, here, on this precise point is not correct.

And there, it is the physicists who are right, and not you.

And there you put yourself in a bad gear by an excess of severity against
a very beautiful, experimental theory, but very badly understood and
taught by all men who do not understand its primum movens, and describe
things very badly.

So you're doing humanity a disservice by talking like you talk and denying
everything.

R.H.

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:03:36 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/03/2023 à 15:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 15:18:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> >> It is the same with the theory of relativity, we will say if a man leaves
> >> for 30 years in the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c, he will come back
> >> aged 18.
> >
> > No, we won't. You're free to say it yourself, of course.
> In relativistic science as elsewhere, there are two possible deviations.
>
> Accept everything considerately, deny everything ideologically.
>
> The good example is that of the guitarist.
>
> If he does not stretch his string, the guitar will produce a low and
> unpleasant sound.
>
> If he stretches it too much, it breaks.
>
> It is therefore often necessary to seek the happy medium.
>
> Overly strict parents suffocate, overly lax parents confuse.
>
> It is the same in the theory of relativity, it is necessary, as you do, to
> criticize this cold monster.
>
> But you have to do it intelligently, and not throw out all the bathwater.
>
> Your criticism, here, on this precise point is not correct.

My opinion is different.

On 2023-03-03 14:30:27 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:18:44 AM UTC-3, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 03/03/2023 à 02:18, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :>> > When a
>> theory is not logical, it does not predict.
>> This is not quite true: an illogical theory, even frankly
>> contradictory> internally (like the theory of relativity in front of
>> explanations in> apparent speeds of Langevin, or in front of clear
>> explanations of what> happens in accelerated reference frames) can have
>> correct predictions.>> For example, if I pose today, blessed be Dr.
>> Richard Hachel, the> theoretical idea that multiplication is similar to
>> addition, I will be> able to give you a double proof.>> I will say that
>> 0+0=0>> and that 0*0=0>> Then I will say 2+2=4 and 2*2=4>> We can
>> therefore see that the results are similar and perfectly exact.>> So
>> I'm going to ask "addition is multiplication".>> It is the same with
>> the theory of relativity, we will say if a man leaves> for 30 years in
>> the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c, he will come back> aged 18.>>
>> And we will be right.>> And we will say: if a man travels 12 ly at
>> accelerated speed (a=1.052> ly/y²) the equation will be
>> To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax) and we will be> right.>> Stan and Paul, two
>> relativists from here, can even add that if two leave> at the same
>> time, but for two different distances, the delay between the> two
>> returns will be ΔTo=T02-To1>> It is still perfectly correct.>> We can
>> do experimental tests, and jump for joy like a goat.>> But almost
>> everything else in the theory is wrong.>> This also explains all the
>> paradoxes sometimes raised.>> Paradoxes that I do not have, I recall
>> once again.>> R.H.>
>> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Ccabj4edGDQbYRWNXLUFyCUpAcA@jntp>
>
> You are in love with yourself, aren't you?

You are right about that. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 03/03/2023 à 17:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:03:36 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 03/03/2023 à 15:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 15:18:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is the same with the theory of relativity, we will say if a man leaves
>> >> for 30 years in the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c, he will come back
>> >> aged 18.
>> >
>> > No, we won't. You're free to say it yourself, of course.
>> In relativistic science as elsewhere, there are two possible deviations.
>>
>> Accept everything considerately, deny everything ideologically.
>>
>> The good example is that of the guitarist.
>>
>> If he does not stretch his string, the guitar will produce a low and
>> unpleasant sound.
>>
>> If he stretches it too much, it breaks.
>>
>> It is therefore often necessary to seek the happy medium.
>>
>> Overly strict parents suffocate, overly lax parents confuse.
>>
>> It is the same in the theory of relativity, it is necessary, as you do, to
>> criticize this cold monster.
>>
>> But you have to do it intelligently, and not throw out all the bathwater.
>>
>> Your criticism, here, on this precise point is not correct.
>
> My opinion is different.

Oui, mais elle n'est pas juste.

On peut aussi dire que 2+3=9

On peut le dire ; mais ce n'est pas juste.

R.H.

R.H.

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 18:31:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/03/2023 à 17:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:03:36 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 03/03/2023 à 15:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 15:18:44 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It is the same with the theory of relativity, we will say if a man leaves
> >> >> for 30 years in the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c, he will come back
> >> >> aged 18.
> >> >
> >> > No, we won't. You're free to say it yourself, of course.
> >> In relativistic science as elsewhere, there are two possible deviations.
> >>
> >> Accept everything considerately, deny everything ideologically.
> >>
> >> The good example is that of the guitarist.
> >>
> >> If he does not stretch his string, the guitar will produce a low and
> >> unpleasant sound.
> >>
> >> If he stretches it too much, it breaks.
> >>
> >> It is therefore often necessary to seek the happy medium.
> >>
> >> Overly strict parents suffocate, overly lax parents confuse.
> >>
> >> It is the same in the theory of relativity, it is necessary, as you do, to
> >> criticize this cold monster.
> >>
> >> But you have to do it intelligently, and not throw out all the bathwater.
> >>
> >> Your criticism, here, on this precise point is not correct.
> >
> > My opinion is different.
> Oui, mais elle n'est pas juste.
>
> On peut aussi dire que 2+3=9

It was your idiot guru denying basic
[Euclidean] math, not me.

Le 03/03/2023 à 20:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

>> > My opinion is different.
>> Oui, mais elle n'est pas juste.
>>
>> On peut aussi dire que 2+3=9
>
> It was your idiot guru denying basic
> [Euclidean] math, not me.

You deny everything I say without trying to understand what I say and why
I say it.

It is systematic opposition.

It has no scientific interest, and it lacks courage.

A votre décharge, je dirai que tout le monde fait comme ça. Je n'ai
jamais compris pourquoi.
On nie sans même comprendre ce que l'autre a dit. Ca me dépasse.
Le but n'est jamais de comprendre ou de progresser, mais de montrer qu'on
a "encore plus raison".

R.H.

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 20:27:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/03/2023 à 20:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> >> > My opinion is different.
> >> Oui, mais elle n'est pas juste.
> >>
> >> On peut aussi dire que 2+3=9
> >
> > It was your idiot guru denying basic
> > [Euclidean] math, not me.
> You deny everything I say without trying to understand what I say and why
> I say it.

What you say is obvious, yet another one
marked for enlightened leadership - by
Nature itself.
Why you say it is obvious as well.

On 3/2/23 5:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz
> wrote:
>> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or
>> amateur.
>
>> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU
>> are defending, you are just parroting around.
>>
>> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.
>>
>> That's all, dear PARROTS.
> I have done this experiment: placing two flashlights end to end
> shining away from each other, I find the relative speed of the two
> light beams is 2 x C and not .866C.

Fantasies are not experiments. And you seem to not know what the words
you use actually mean (specifically "relative speed").

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/2/23 5:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz
> > wrote:
> >> It goes for EVERY desktop physicist here, either professional or
> >> amateur.
> >
> >> IF you didn't PARTICIPATE (first hand) in the experiment that YOU
> >> are defending, you are just parroting around.
> >>
> >> You have no right to claim intellectual superiority.
> >>
> >> That's all, dear PARROTS.
> > I have done this experiment: placing two flashlights end to end
> > shining away from each other, I find the relative speed of the two
> > light beams is 2 x C and not .866C.
> Fantasies are not experiments.

What are your gedanken experiments then, poor halfbrain?

Le 01/12/2022 à 13:46, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

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

On that, I don't agree.

R.H.

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 5:11:13 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On the other hand, I put my passion (once retired) into the history of physics and mathematics. I found it FASCINATING to find the
> threads that connect one breakthrough with another, along centuries (or decades, depending on the subject).
> I find pleasure UNDERSTANDING how mankind advanced through the years and, also,
> developing the timeline for any modern achievement.
How about for a modern decline in science? I have a question about the first postulate. Lorentz's first postulate was adopted by Einstein. It is usually understood (e.g. by Feynman) as a corollary of Newton's laws of motion which is the same as Galileo's principle. (It doesn't seem like Galileo called it a principle of relativity). However, its meaning changed totally from Newton to Lorentz. Was Lorentz the first to give it that form, and what sense does it really make? In my opinion, it's a vague and meaningless statement. Of course, the laws of physics apply everywhere. Evidently, it is taken to mean that the formulas for laws of physics must not need to be adjusted for relative motion!

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:50:39 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory
> https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/12249/saturn-bound-spacecraft-tests-einsteins-theory/
>
> An experiment by Italian scientists using data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently en route to Saturn, confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements.
>
> The findings appear in the Sept. 25 issue of the journal Nature. They are part of a scientific collaboration between NASA and the Italian Space Agency. The experiment took place in the summer of 2002, when the spacecraft and Earth were on opposite sides of the Sun separated by a distance of more than 1 billion kilometers (approximately 621 million miles).
>
> Researchers observed the frequency shift of radio waves to and from the spacecraft as the waves passed near the Sun.
> ......
> The researchers measured how much the Sun's gravity bent an electromagnetic beam, in this case the radio signal transmitted by the spacecraft and received by the ground stations.
> ......
> Past tests of general relativity confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of one part per thousand. This accuracy was achieved back in 1979 using the Viking landers on Mars. The Cassini experiment confirmed it to an accuracy of 20 parts per million. The key to this improvement has been the adoption of novel technologies in space telecommunications.
>
> The experiment could not have been conducted to this level of accuracy in the past because of NOISE on the radio link introduced by the SOLAR CORONA.. With the Cassini experiment, this hindrance WAS OVERCOME by fitting the spacecraft communication system with multiple links at different frequencies.. This new capability on the Cassini spacecraft and on the 34-meter (112 foot) diameter antenna at Goldstone, allowed scientists to remove the effects of the interplanetary and solar plasma from the radio data.
>
> IN ADDITION, the NOISE FROM EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WAS STRONGLY REDUCED by SPECIAL equipment installed at the Goldstone complex. These technological breakthroughs developed for the Cassini mission have led to unprecedented accuracies in the velocity measurements with benefits for future scientific experiments as well as deep space navigation.
> *****************************
>
> So, a bunch of Italians relativists took huge datasets from NASA, collected for a couple of months in 2002. They POST-PROCESSED it
> using unknown algorithms to extract "valid data" from the noisy source (like Milky Way's radiation WAS "ELIMINATED" in 1992 COBE,
> to prove how perfectly planckian was the CBR) and, with such extraordinary fitting with GR, they calculated that Cassini's signal had
> traveled an extra amount of 36 METERS (taking twice the deflection angle) over a distance of near 1 billion Km.
>
>
> Really? They measured an extra distance of 36 METERS over a distance of 1,000,000,000,000 meters of higher? WITH ALL THAT NOISE?
> AVERAGING HOW?
>
> And 36 meters would be (see calculations) at the highest deflection angle, and TWICE the considered deflection, one per path.
> STOP FOOLING YOURSELF AND TAKING FOR IDIOT EVERYONE ELSE!
>
>
> Simple calculations (deflection of EM waves grazing the surface of the Sun TWICE, to make the shame half the real 18 mt shame):
>
> DES; Distance Earth-Sun. Direct path.
> DJS: Distance Jupiter-Sun. Direct path.
> DESe: Distance Earth-Sun. Deflected path (Diffraction, not GR).
> DJSe: Distance Jupiter-Sun. Deflected path (Diffraction, not GR).
> 1.75": Highest deflection angle, for EM waves grazing the surface of the Sun.
>
>
> DES = DESe cos(1.75")
> DJS = DJSe cos(1.75")
>
> dDTe = DESe + DJSe - DES - DJS = (DES + DJS) (1/cos(1.75") - 1)
>
> dDTe = DTSe + DJSe - DTS - DJS = (DTS + DJS) (1/cos(1.75") - 1)
> dDTe = (DES + DJS) x 3,59912100122983E-11 = 36 meters
>
> 1,000,000,000,000 x 3,59912100122983E-11 = 36 meters
Edward Dowdye has written that the microwave data you mention here is due to refraction involving the solar wind.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:51:27 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/12/2022 à 13:46, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
> > Those who know SR and GR do not have to do own
> > experiments to be able to tell ignoramuses and cranks
> > what SR and GR say about this and that.
>
> On that, I don't agree.
>
> R.H.

Nevertheless, that's how it is.

--
Jan

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:43:42 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:50:39 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory
> > https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/12249/saturn-bound-spacecraft-tests-einsteins-theory/
> >
> > An experiment by Italian scientists using data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently en route to Saturn, confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements.
> >
> > The findings appear in the Sept. 25 issue of the journal Nature. They are part of a scientific collaboration between NASA and the Italian Space Agency. The experiment took place in the summer of 2002, when the spacecraft and Earth were on opposite sides of the Sun separated by a distance of more than 1 billion kilometers (approximately 621 million miles).
> >
> > Researchers observed the frequency shift of radio waves to and from the spacecraft as the waves passed near the Sun.
> > ......
> > The researchers measured how much the Sun's gravity bent an electromagnetic beam, in this case the radio signal transmitted by the spacecraft and received by the ground stations.
> > ......
> > Past tests of general relativity confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of one part per thousand. This accuracy was achieved back in 1979 using the Viking landers on Mars. The Cassini experiment confirmed it to an accuracy of 20 parts per million. The key to this improvement has been the adoption of novel technologies in space telecommunications.
> >
> > The experiment could not have been conducted to this level of accuracy in the past because of NOISE on the radio link introduced by the SOLAR CORONA. With the Cassini experiment, this hindrance WAS OVERCOME by fitting the spacecraft communication system with multiple links at different frequencies. This new capability on the Cassini spacecraft and on the 34-meter (112 foot) diameter antenna at Goldstone, allowed scientists to remove the effects of the interplanetary and solar plasma from the radio data.
> >
> > IN ADDITION, the NOISE FROM EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WAS STRONGLY REDUCED by SPECIAL equipment installed at the Goldstone complex. These technological breakthroughs developed for the Cassini mission have led to unprecedented accuracies in the velocity measurements with benefits for future scientific experiments as well as deep space navigation.
> > *****************************
> >
> > So, a bunch of Italians relativists took huge datasets from NASA, collected for a couple of months in 2002. They POST-PROCESSED it
> > using unknown algorithms to extract "valid data" from the noisy source (like Milky Way's radiation WAS "ELIMINATED" in 1992 COBE,
> > to prove how perfectly planckian was the CBR) and, with such extraordinary fitting with GR, they calculated that Cassini's signal had
> > traveled an extra amount of 36 METERS (taking twice the deflection angle) over a distance of near 1 billion Km.
> >
> >
> > Really? They measured an extra distance of 36 METERS over a distance of 1,000,000,000,000 meters of higher? WITH ALL THAT NOISE?
> > AVERAGING HOW?
> >
> > And 36 meters would be (see calculations) at the highest deflection angle, and TWICE the considered deflection, one per path.
> > STOP FOOLING YOURSELF AND TAKING FOR IDIOT EVERYONE ELSE!
> >
> >
> > Simple calculations (deflection of EM waves grazing the surface of the Sun TWICE, to make the shame half the real 18 mt shame):
> >
> > DES; Distance Earth-Sun. Direct path.
> > DJS: Distance Jupiter-Sun. Direct path.
> > DESe: Distance Earth-Sun. Deflected path (Diffraction, not GR).
> > DJSe: Distance Jupiter-Sun. Deflected path (Diffraction, not GR).
> > 1.75": Highest deflection angle, for EM waves grazing the surface of the Sun.
> >
> >
> > DES = DESe cos(1.75")
> > DJS = DJSe cos(1.75")
> >
> > dDTe = DESe + DJSe - DES - DJS = (DES + DJS) (1/cos(1.75") - 1)
> >
> > dDTe = DTSe + DJSe - DTS - DJS = (DTS + DJS) (1/cos(1.75") - 1)
> > dDTe = (DES + DJS) x 3,59912100122983E-11 = 36 meters
> >
> > 1,000,000,000,000 x 3,59912100122983E-11 = 36 meters
> Edward Dowdye has written that the microwave data you mention here is due to refraction involving the solar wind.

Of course, it is. And don't forget that the Italian team used GB of data collected FOR OTHER MEANS, like the French cretins
with HIPPARCOS.

Once they got their hands in such huge datasets (as the French), they used extreme statistical manipulation of data, plus
COOKING, CHERRY PICKING, TRIMMING and FUDGING, until they got what they wanted: to prove "Einstein's right".

The same deceiving, fraudulent Modus Operandi (MO) has been being used since computer power vs. costs reached a convenient
cost/benefit threshold (along with enhanced computer languages) around 1970.. Today, such relationship is 1,000,000 times lower,
or even more (consider the power processing used in the Planck's satellite project, 10 years ago).

And most of the modern physics experiments around relativity (like Cassini) has the advantage for them of ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY
and ZERO CAPABILITY FOR THIRD PARTIES FACT-CHECK. Imagine WHO and WHY would dig in the obscure algorithms, statistics and
data selection if we are talking about MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS.

So, for these cretins, and using the deceiving power of statistics and OBSCURITY, it is possible to demonstrate whatever they planned
to prove.

One modern example of such fraudulent actions in astrophysics is the EXTRACTION of z (red-shift data) from datasets based on
ONE PIXEL in Hubble images, to prove universe expansion. OR, as you can see the images having 10x10 pixels of a distant galaxy,
arrive to the conclusion that it's near the edge of the visible universe, 10+ bly far away.

So, with modern science, you ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE on their word (like with the WHO and the vaxx).

Decadent world, rotten to the core, and no further than 10/15 years from the complete collapse of "western" civilization.

I hope that this may happen earlier.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5:52:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:43:42 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:50:39 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory

> > >
> > > Researchers observed the frequency shift of radio waves to and from the spacecraft as the waves passed near the Sun.
> > > ......
> > > The researchers measured how much the Sun's gravity bent an electromagnetic beam, in this case the radio signal transmitted by the spacecraft and received by the ground stations.
> > > ......
> > > Past tests of general relativity confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of one part per thousand. This accuracy was achieved back in 1979 using the Viking landers on Mars. The Cassini experiment confirmed it to an accuracy of 20 parts per million. The key to this improvement has been the adoption of novel technologies in space telecommunications.
> > >
> > > The experiment could not have been conducted to this level of accuracy in the past because of NOISE on the radio link introduced by the SOLAR CORONA. With the Cassini experiment, this hindrance WAS OVERCOME by fitting the spacecraft communication system with multiple links at different frequencies. This new capability on the Cassini spacecraft and on the 34-meter (112 foot) diameter antenna at Goldstone, allowed scientists to remove the effects of the interplanetary and solar plasma from the radio data.
> > >
> > > IN ADDITION, the NOISE FROM EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WAS STRONGLY REDUCED by SPECIAL equipment installed at the Goldstone complex. These technological breakthroughs developed for the Cassini mission have led to unprecedented accuracies in the velocity measurements with benefits for future scientific experiments as well as deep space navigation.
> > > *****************************
> > >
> > > So, a bunch of Italians relativists took huge datasets from NASA, collected for a couple of months in 2002. They POST-PROCESSED it
> > > using unknown algorithms to extract "valid data" from the noisy source (like Milky Way's radiation WAS "ELIMINATED" in 1992 COBE,
> > > to prove how perfectly planckian was the CBR) and, with such extraordinary fitting with GR, they calculated that Cassini's signal had
> > > traveled an extra amount of 36 METERS (taking twice the deflection angle) over a distance of near 1 billion Km.
> > >
> > >
> > > Really? They measured an extra distance of 36 METERS over a distance of 1,000,000,000,000 meters of higher? WITH ALL THAT NOISE?
> > > AVERAGING HOW?
> > >
> > > And 36 meters would be (see calculations) at the highest deflection angle, and TWICE the considered deflection, one per path.

> > Edward Dowdye has written that the microwave data you mention here is due to refraction involving the solar wind.
> Of course, it is. And don't forget that the Italian team used GB of data collected FOR OTHER MEANS, like the French cretins
> with HIPPARCOS.
>
> Once they got their hands in such huge datasets (as the French), they used extreme statistical manipulation of data, plus
> COOKING, CHERRY PICKING, TRIMMING and FUDGING, until they got what they wanted: to prove "Einstein's right".
>
> The same deceiving, fraudulent Modus Operandi (MO) has been being used since computer power vs. costs reached a convenient
> cost/benefit threshold (along with enhanced computer languages) around 1970. Today, such relationship is 1,000,000 times lower,
> or even more (consider the power processing used in the Planck's satellite project, 10 years ago).
>
> And most of the modern physics experiments around relativity (like Cassini) has the advantage for them of ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY
> and ZERO CAPABILITY FOR THIRD PARTIES FACT-CHECK. Imagine WHO and WHY would dig in the obscure algorithms, statistics and
> data selection if we are talking about MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS.
>
> So, for these cretins, and using the deceiving power of statistics and OBSCURITY, it is possible to demonstrate whatever they planned
> to prove.
>
> One modern example of such fraudulent actions in astrophysics is the EXTRACTION of z (red-shift data) from datasets based on
> ONE PIXEL in Hubble images, to prove universe expansion. OR, as you can see the images having 10x10 pixels of a distant galaxy,
> arrive to the conclusion that it's near the edge of the visible universe, 10+ bly far away.
>
> So, with modern science, you ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE on their word (like with the WHO and the vaxx).
>
> Decadent world, rotten to the core, and no further than 10/15 years from the complete collapse of "western" civilization.
>
> I hope that this may happen earlier.
We're in Thucydides Trap U.S. versus China and China's going down fast handicapped by socialism and demographic collapse.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:59:22 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5:52:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:43:42 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:50:39 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory
>
> > > >
> > > > Researchers observed the frequency shift of radio waves to and from the spacecraft as the waves passed near the Sun.
> > > > ......
> > > > The researchers measured how much the Sun's gravity bent an electromagnetic beam, in this case the radio signal transmitted by the spacecraft and received by the ground stations.
> > > > ......
> > > > Past tests of general relativity confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of one part per thousand. This accuracy was achieved back in 1979 using the Viking landers on Mars. The Cassini experiment confirmed it to an accuracy of 20 parts per million. The key to this improvement has been the adoption of novel technologies in space telecommunications.
> > > >
> > > > The experiment could not have been conducted to this level of accuracy in the past because of NOISE on the radio link introduced by the SOLAR CORONA. With the Cassini experiment, this hindrance WAS OVERCOME by fitting the spacecraft communication system with multiple links at different frequencies. This new capability on the Cassini spacecraft and on the 34-meter (112 foot) diameter antenna at Goldstone, allowed scientists to remove the effects of the interplanetary and solar plasma from the radio data.
> > > >
> > > > IN ADDITION, the NOISE FROM EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WAS STRONGLY REDUCED by SPECIAL equipment installed at the Goldstone complex. These technological breakthroughs developed for the Cassini mission have led to unprecedented accuracies in the velocity measurements with benefits for future scientific experiments as well as deep space navigation.
> > > > *****************************
> > > >
> > > > So, a bunch of Italians relativists took huge datasets from NASA, collected for a couple of months in 2002. They POST-PROCESSED it
> > > > using unknown algorithms to extract "valid data" from the noisy source (like Milky Way's radiation WAS "ELIMINATED" in 1992 COBE,
> > > > to prove how perfectly planckian was the CBR) and, with such extraordinary fitting with GR, they calculated that Cassini's signal had
> > > > traveled an extra amount of 36 METERS (taking twice the deflection angle) over a distance of near 1 billion Km.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? They measured an extra distance of 36 METERS over a distance of 1,000,000,000,000 meters of higher? WITH ALL THAT NOISE?
> > > > AVERAGING HOW?
> > > >
> > > > And 36 meters would be (see calculations) at the highest deflection angle, and TWICE the considered deflection, one per path.
> > > Edward Dowdye has written that the microwave data you mention here is due to refraction involving the solar wind.
> > Of course, it is. And don't forget that the Italian team used GB of data collected FOR OTHER MEANS, like the French cretins
> > with HIPPARCOS.
> >
> > Once they got their hands in such huge datasets (as the French), they used extreme statistical manipulation of data, plus
> > COOKING, CHERRY PICKING, TRIMMING and FUDGING, until they got what they wanted: to prove "Einstein's right".
> >
> > The same deceiving, fraudulent Modus Operandi (MO) has been being used since computer power vs. costs reached a convenient
> > cost/benefit threshold (along with enhanced computer languages) around 1970. Today, such relationship is 1,000,000 times lower,
> > or even more (consider the power processing used in the Planck's satellite project, 10 years ago).
> >
> > And most of the modern physics experiments around relativity (like Cassini) has the advantage for them of ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY
> > and ZERO CAPABILITY FOR THIRD PARTIES FACT-CHECK. Imagine WHO and WHY would dig in the obscure algorithms, statistics and
> > data selection if we are talking about MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS.
> >
> > So, for these cretins, and using the deceiving power of statistics and OBSCURITY, it is possible to demonstrate whatever they planned
> > to prove.
> >
> > One modern example of such fraudulent actions in astrophysics is the EXTRACTION of z (red-shift data) from datasets based on
> > ONE PIXEL in Hubble images, to prove universe expansion. OR, as you can see the images having 10x10 pixels of a distant galaxy,
> > arrive to the conclusion that it's near the edge of the visible universe, 10+ bly far away.
> >
> > So, with modern science, you ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE on their word (like with the WHO and the vaxx).
> >
> > Decadent world, rotten to the core, and no further than 10/15 years from the complete collapse of "western" civilization.
> >
> > I hope that this may happen earlier.
> We're in Thucydides Trap U.S. versus China and China's going down fast handicapped by socialism and demographic collapse.

I googled "Thucydides Trap". Didn't know that name.

I think that the collapse will be global, with no winner or hot war. It will happen all of a sudden, any single day, with a default
on 400 trillion USD collaterals spread all over the world, that will force the bubble of fiat money to explode. It will make the
Great Depression to look like a simple flu, compared to pneumonia.

Too much of an interconnected world, heavily globalized and randomly unstable, to keep going like this.

Physical gold, in possession of very few, will become king. And only few countries will be spared from the catastrophe, being them
in the Southern Hemisphere.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:23:39 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:59:22 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> I googled "Thucydides Trap". Didn't know that name.
>
> I think that the collapse will be global, with no winner or hot war. It will happen all of a sudden, any single day, with a default
> on 400 trillion USD collaterals spread all over the world, that will force the bubble of fiat money to explode. It will make the
> Great Depression to look like a simple flu, compared to pneumonia.
>
> Too much of an interconnected world, heavily globalized and randomly unstable, to keep going like this.
>
> Physical gold, in possession of very few, will become king. And only few countries will be spared from the catastrophe, being them
> in the Southern Hemisphere.
It doesn't work that way. You're describing a deflationary collapse which won't happen since they can always inflate out of it. The U.S. just has to inflate less than other countries, and that's practically always the case. The mass immigration will prevent the end of Western civilization. I believe the U.S. will soon regime-change Iran bringing peace to the Middle East and putting China in its place. I just saw a video saying China's navy wont be a match for the U.S. for another ten years, so they can't aggress much in the South China Sea. Pete Zeihan says China is rapidly declining demographically and economically, so it won't surpass the U.S. Thucydides Trap between Britain and Germany was the cause of the two world wars.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 5:11:13?AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On the other hand, I put my passion (once retired) into the history of
> > physics and mathematics. I found it FASCINATING to find the threads that
> > connect one breakthrough with another, along centuries (or decades,
> > depending on the subject). I find pleasure UNDERSTANDING how mankind
> > advanced through the years and, also, developing the timeline for any
> > modern achievement.
> How about for a modern decline in science? I have a question about the
> first postulate. Lorentz's first postulate was adopted by Einstein. It is
> usually understood (e.g. by Feynman) as a corollary of Newton's laws of
> motion which is the same as Galileo's principle. (It doesn't seem like
> Galileo called it a principle of relativity). However, its meaning changed
> totally from Newton to Lorentz. Was Lorentz the first to give it that
> form, and what sense does it really make? In my opinion, it's a vague and
> meaningless statement. Of course, the laws of physics apply everywhere.
> Evidently, it is taken to mean that the formulas for laws of physics must
> not need to be adjusted for relative motion!

Au contraire, nothing at all has changed
between Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
All of them postulated just the same.

The only difference between them is
that more laws of nature became known in the meantime.
Einsteinian special relativity is the natural and inevitable result
of including Maxwell's equations in 'the laws of nature'.

Jan

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 11:14:15 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 5:11:13?AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On the other hand, I put my passion (once retired) into the history of
> > > physics and mathematics. I found it FASCINATING to find the threads that
> > > connect one breakthrough with another, along centuries (or decades,
> > > depending on the subject). I find pleasure UNDERSTANDING how mankind
> > > advanced through the years and, also, developing the timeline for any
> > > modern achievement.
> > How about for a modern decline in science? I have a question about the
> > first postulate. Lorentz's first postulate was adopted by Einstein. It is
> > usually understood (e.g. by Feynman) as a corollary of Newton's laws of
> > motion which is the same as Galileo's principle. (It doesn't seem like
> > Galileo called it a principle of relativity). However, its meaning changed
> > totally from Newton to Lorentz. Was Lorentz the first to give it that
> > form, and what sense does it really make? In my opinion, it's a vague and
> > meaningless statement. Of course, the laws of physics apply everywhere.
> > Evidently, it is taken to mean that the formulas for laws of physics must
> > not need to be adjusted for relative motion!
> Au contraire, nothing at all has changed
> between Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
> All of them postulated just the same.

And you're saying this nonsense because it
is soooo beautiful that it must be right.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:23:39 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:59:22 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> I think that the collapse will be global, with no winner or hot war. It will happen all of a sudden, any single day, with a default
> on 400 trillion USD collaterals spread all over the world, that will force the bubble of fiat money to explode. It will make the
> Great Depression to look like a simple flu, compared to pneumonia.
>
> Too much of an interconnected world, heavily globalized and randomly unstable, to keep going like this.
>
> Physical gold, in possession of very few, will become king. And only few countries will be spared from the catastrophe, being them
> in the Southern Hemisphere.
I should have listened more carefully. You said "explode," not implode. Discarding U.S. money and debt instruments would result in hyperinflation in the U.S. as all the dollars would return home, having lost their value as an international currency. I know there has been a lot of noise about this scenario in the news because Russia, China, South Africa, and Brazil dislike the Bretton Woods international arrangement established in about 1945. However, if the Saudis decided to make their contracts in Yen or Rubles, they must regret it already. The dollar isn't losing its status for a long time.

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:14:15 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> Au contraire, nothing at all has changed
> between Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
> All of them postulated just the same.
>
> The only difference between them is
> that more laws of nature became known in the meantime.
> Einsteinian special relativity is the natural and inevitable result
> of including Maxwell's equations in 'the laws of nature'.
>
> Jan
Not correct. Anyone consulting the original sources can know they are not about laws of nature in general. They are about laws of motion in particular.. Specifically a corollary on shared momentum. Galileo describes plainly the momentum sharing in a ship's cabin provided the ship has a linear, uniform motion. The second postulate flagrantly contradicts this, claiming photons do not share the motion of the source.

Slow time is real but it is not relativistic.
it depends on speed through space and gravity strength.
The strength of force obeys the speed limit
like propulsion speed on Earth does...

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:33:15 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> And I bet you still have no idea of what PPN parameter γ is.
> Paul
So Newtonian gravity attracts inward by +1 and Relativity deflects outward -1 ; +1-1= 0 deflection.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 1:33:15 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> And I bet you still have no idea of what PPN parameter γ is.
> Paul
A doubling of Newtonian attraction towards the Sun would be 1.8" away from Relativity's doubling away "deflection.