INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:

"Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"

Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core..

Same question in Duck Duck Go:

Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)

Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.

"You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"

— psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University

Den 30.04.2023 15:28, skrev Richard Hertz:
> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
>
> "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
>
> Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
>
> Same question in Duck Duck Go:
>
> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
>
> Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
> Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
> Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
> The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
>
>
> "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
>
> — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University

What about Sagnac?
Does light according to Sagnac use different time to go around
the Earth at equator when it goes eastwards and when it goes
westwards?
Or is Sagnac not applicable on this problem?

Somebody said:
"SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY."
Was he right? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
>
> "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
>
> Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
>
> Same question in Duck Duck Go:
>
> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
>
> Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
> Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
> Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
> The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
>
>
> "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
>
> — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University
Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.

El viernes, 19 de mayo de 2023 a las 16:06:27 UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
> >
> > "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
> >
> > Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
> >
> > Same question in Duck Duck Go:
> >
> > Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
> >
> > Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
> > Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
> > Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
> > The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
> >
> >
> > "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
> >
> > — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University
> Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.

Most trolls here, are working hard to ensure Einstein will be widely known in 1000 years!!!!

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:

Fix your Einstein Derangement Syndrome.

--
Jan

On 5/19/2023 3:06 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
>>
>> "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
>>
>> Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
>>
>> Same question in Duck Duck Go:
>>
>> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
>>
>> Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
>> Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
>> Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
>> The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
>>
>>
>> "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
>>
>> — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University
> Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.

Only when something of greater value replaces it. Criticism is
easy and worthless until real(tm) advances are discovered. That's
a universal problem for the cranks.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:59:24 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 5/19/2023 3:06 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
> >>
> >> "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
> >>
> >> Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
> >>
> >> Same question in Duck Duck Go:
> >>
> >> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
> >>
> >> Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
> >> Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
> >> Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
> >> The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
> >>
> >>
> >> "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
> >>
> >> — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University
> > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
> Only when something of greater value replaces it. Criticism is
> easy and worthless until real(tm) advances are discovered. That's
> a universal problem for the cranks.
It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 6:59:24 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> On 5/19/2023 3:06 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
> >>
> >> "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
> >>
> >> Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
> >>
> >> Same question in Duck Duck Go:
> >>
> >> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
> >>
> >> Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
> >> Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
> >> Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
> >> The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
> >>
> >>
> >> "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
> >>
> >> — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University
> > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
> Only when something of greater value replaces it. Criticism is
> easy and worthless until real(tm) advances are discovered. That's
> a universal problem for the cranks.

Context is everything in this evaluation of Newton's greatness.

Before Newton's publication of his Principia, there was darkness in the understanding of the behavior of nature.

With Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravity, plus the invention of calculus (along with Leibnitz), it was possible to
enter into an Age of Light: Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Mathematics and predictive models. It opened
the door, almost 200 years later, for another great mind (Maxwell) to create the world of electromagnetism.

It has been almost 350 years since it was learned how to model nature with mathematics (and geometry). The Industrial Revolution
and, since about 1870, the Technology Revolution, have both brought us to this point WITHOUT ANY INFLUENCE OF RELATIVITY.

Electronics and computer sciences completed the revolution/evolution of science in general, with hypergeometric development in
the last 60 years, without any influence of relativity.

The modern world exists because of the contributions of other geniuses (Bell, Edison, Tesla, de Forest, Shockley, etc.), without any
contribution of relativity.

Relativity, born as a sterile pseudo-philosophy, found ONLY two niches: particle physics and cosmology, which had contributed in
NOTHING to THIS STATE OF CIVILIZATION.

Yet, such theory about SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION, contributed that about 150,000 parasites in the last century (many of them
as subversive as communists), had a job with privileges, no accountability for actions and mental masturbation. These parasites
CONTRIBUTED IN NOTHING to REALITY, except to generate jobs in publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood, travel industry and
corporations that made huge revenues creating ad-hoc instruments, satellites, etc., for the relativistic community, with public money.

But, as the moral compass is lost in this modern world, the constant brainwashing of gullible people by the relativistic religion
have placed relativity in an undeserved place in the history of physics, because the ordinary people are 100% retarded and ignorant,
and buy anything following a herd instinct, so they don't have to think beyond Homer Simpson's boundaries of thought and ambition.

But few, and it's OK, know how fraudulent was Einstein, how useless is relativity, and why it stands. It only takes to follow the money.

On 5/19/2023 5:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:59:24 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 5/19/2023 3:06 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:28:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> INDOCTRINATION, AS ANSWER GIVEN IN GOOGLE:
>>>>
>>>> "Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is one of the most important papers ever published in the field of physics.1 feb 2022"
>>>>
>>>> Book? 26 pages manifesto? The world of disinformation is rotten to the core.
>>>>
>>>> Same question in Duck Duck Go:
>>>>
>>>> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)
>>>>
>>>> Dramatic is an unlikely word for a book that devotes half its pages to deconstructions of ellipses, parabolas, and tangents. Yet the cognitive power on display here can trigger chills.
>>>> Principia marks the dawn of modern physics, beginning with the familiar three laws of motion ("To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" is the third).
>>>> Later Newton explains the eccentric paths of comets, notes the similarity between sound waves and ripples on a pond, and makes his famous case that gravity guides the orbit of the moon as surely as it defines the arc of a tossed pebble.
>>>> The text is dry but accessible to anyone with a high school education — an opportunity to commune with perhaps the top genius in the history of science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "You don't have to be a Newton junkie like me to really find it gripping. I mean how amazing is it that this guy was able to figure out that the same force that lets a bird poop on your head governs the motions of planets in the heavens? That is towering genius, no?"
>>>>
>>>> — psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman, Cornell University

>>> Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.

>> Only when something of greater value replaces it. Criticism is
>> easy and worthless until real(tm) advances are discovered. That's
>> a universal problem for the cranks.

> It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.

As if "crank" needed further definition. Thanks anyway.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> > > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.

> It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.

Are you claiming that Einstein's relativity has *never* been used to further science, has never benefited mankind, or has never resulted in any marketable product?? Are you claiming that nothing in your life exists because of Einstein's relativity?

It would be my own claim that unless you fully understand a theory you are in no position to criticize it, and you clearly do not understand relativity.

On 5/19/2023 6:12 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
>>>> Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
>
>> It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.
>
> Are you claiming that Einstein's relativity has *never* been used to further science, has never benefited mankind, or has never resulted in any marketable product?? Are you claiming that nothing in your life exists because of Einstein's relativity?
>
> It would be my own claim that unless you fully understand a theory you are in no position to criticize it, and you clearly do not understand relativity.

Cranks only crank, they don't actually understand anything.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:12:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
> > It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.
> Are you claiming that Einstein's relativity has *never* been used to further science, has never benefited mankind, or has never resulted in any marketable product?? Are you claiming that nothing in your life exists because of Einstein's relativity?
>
> It would be my own claim that unless you fully understand a theory you are in no position to criticize it, and you clearly do not understand relativity.

I'd say 10 years, before relativity start to vanish from everywhere, and AI power take over the destiny of mankind, in a much larger scale
that what you dream that relativity contributed to..... what?

AI will kill relativity, BECAUSE IT'S LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT. In 10 years, the whole analysis of the evolution of relativity in one century
will be put to oblivion in less than 1 microsecond, if any imbecile dares to confront the entity.

I'd suggest that relativists start walking like over raw eggs. So fragile is their "building".

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:12:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > > > > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
> > > It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.
> > Are you claiming that Einstein's relativity has *never* been used to further science, has never benefited mankind, or has never resulted in any marketable product?? Are you claiming that nothing in your life exists because of Einstein's relativity?
> >
> > It would be my own claim that unless you fully understand a theory you are in no position to criticize it, and you clearly do not understand relativity.
> I'd say 10 years, before relativity start to vanish from everywhere, and AI power take over the destiny of mankind, in a much larger scale
> that what you dream that relativity contributed to..... what?
>
> AI will kill relativity, BECAUSE IT'S LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT. In 10 years, the whole analysis of the evolution of relativity in one century
> will be put to oblivion in less than 1 microsecond, if any imbecile dares to confront the entity.
>
> I'd suggest that relativists start walking like over raw eggs. So fragile is their "building".

Of course, in your own case, you have zero evidence in support of your claim that relativity is wrong. ZERO.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 9:44:26 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> Of course, in your own case, you have zero evidence in support of your claim that relativity is wrong. ZERO.

I don't say that relativity is wrong. That be the case, it could be fixed one way or another.

I say that relativity IS FALSE as a hard science. It's not physics. It's metaphysics, based ON SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION.

Einstenian relativity was born with wrongful use of kinematics, mirrors, light beams and GHOST OBSERVERS that
THINK that THEY PERCEIVE WHAT HAPPENS AT A DISTANCE, with no more support than einstenian kinematics of light.

With such questionable basis, in a couple of pages, the concepts of PERCEIVED LENGTHS AND PERCEIVED TIME DURATIONS
were born, over infantile basis of deceiving thought experiments with paradoxes embedded.

Then, a mathematician gave it formal tensorial notation and created the "indissoluble" concept of spacetime, with TIME AS
A FOURTH DIMENSION.

Then, many others, in the following decades, extended the unproven concept of an interval of spacetime in 4D, and propagated
this imbecility to any possible field of classic physics.

Then, with the idiocy of FOUR-WATHEVER, lik 4-velocity, 4-momentum, 4-force, the attack over newtonian physics proliferated.

But it contains one idiocy after another:

- In 4-velocity, TIME has velocity (the fourth component of the 4D vector).

- In 4-momentum, TIME HAS MOMENTUM (the fourth component of the 4D vector).

- In 4-force, LIGHT EXERTS FORCE (the fourth component of the 4D vector).

And this is just to start. There are another 8 or 9 4-shit being massacred by relativism, like 4-current, etc.

But the worse is when "spacetime, as the fabric of the universe", is used in General Relativity WITHOUT MAKING PHYSICAL SENSE.
Maybe in absolute differential geometry it can make sense, as A MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT in a niche application, IF IT'S ACCEPTED
that TIME can be a spatial dimension in the pseudo-riemannian geometry.

But, as always say, MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS.

That's why there are so many confused imbeciles in this forum: JanPB, you, Dono, Paul, Tom, etc.

Because, as amateur desktop physicists, think that mathematics dictates the reality, which is NOT TRUE.

Mathematics IS A BEAST that has to be controlled, so can work as a companion pet to describe reality with rational thinking.
And this rational thinking forces to drop mathematical outcomes, even if correct, if they don't have a physical meaning.

Can't say it in a more simple way.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 6:10:09 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 9:44:26 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

> > Of course, in your own case, you have zero evidence in support of your claim that relativity is wrong. ZERO.

> I don't say that relativity is wrong. That be the case, it could be fixed one way or another.

Well, in my view, saying relativity is false is exactly the same as saying it is wrong.

It does not matter, for you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "relativity is false". You can't just proclaim such a thing without evidence, that is how science works.

Also, there are umpteen experiments that DO support relativity, and you have zero evidence that refutes any of those experiments.

You are pretty much dead in the water here, don't you understand that?

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:12:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > > > > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
> > > It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.
> > Are you claiming that Einstein's relativity has *never* been used to further science, has never benefited mankind, or has never resulted in any marketable product?? Are you claiming that nothing in your life exists because of Einstein's relativity?
> >
> > It would be my own claim that unless you fully understand a theory you are in no position to criticize it, and you clearly do not understand relativity.
> I'd say 10 years, before relativity start to vanish from everywhere, and AI power take over the destiny of mankind, in a much larger scale
> that what you dream that relativity contributed to..... what?
>
> AI will kill relativity, BECAUSE IT'S LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT. In 10 years, the whole analysis of the evolution of relativity in one century
> will be put to oblivion in less than 1 microsecond, if any imbecile dares to confront the entity.
>
> I'd suggest that relativists start walking like over raw eggs. So fragile is their "building".
Jonathan Bain, a maker of astronomical computer software, has an excellent website and free software. He found it impossible to create software for special relativity because it is logically inconsistent once one includes three frames of reference. http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 6:10:09 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 9:44:26 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Of course, in your own case, you have zero evidence in support of your claim that relativity is wrong. ZERO.
> I don't say that relativity is wrong. That be the case, it could be fixed one way or another.
>
> I say that relativity IS FALSE as a hard science. It's not physics. It's metaphysics, based ON SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION.
>
> Einstenian relativity was born with wrongful use of kinematics, mirrors, light beams and GHOST OBSERVERS that
> THINK that THEY PERCEIVE WHAT HAPPENS AT A DISTANCE, with no more support than einstenian kinematics of light.
>
> With such questionable basis, in a couple of pages, the concepts of PERCEIVED LENGTHS AND PERCEIVED TIME DURATIONS
> were born, over infantile basis of deceiving thought experiments with paradoxes embedded.
>
> Then, a mathematician gave it formal tensorial notation and created the "indissoluble" concept of spacetime, with TIME AS
> A FOURTH DIMENSION.
>
> Then, many others, in the following decades, extended the unproven concept of an interval of spacetime in 4D, and propagated
> this imbecility to any possible field of classic physics.
>
> Then, with the idiocy of FOUR-WATHEVER, lik 4-velocity, 4-momentum, 4-force, the attack over newtonian physics proliferated.
>
> But it contains one idiocy after another:
>
> - In 4-velocity, TIME has velocity (the fourth component of the 4D vector).
>
> - In 4-momentum, TIME HAS MOMENTUM (the fourth component of the 4D vector).
>
> - In 4-force, LIGHT EXERTS FORCE (the fourth component of the 4D vector).
>
> And this is just to start. There are another 8 or 9 4-shit being massacred by relativism, like 4-current, etc.
>
> But the worse is when "spacetime, as the fabric of the universe", is used in General Relativity WITHOUT MAKING PHYSICAL SENSE.
> Maybe in absolute differential geometry it can make sense, as A MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT in a niche application, IF IT'S ACCEPTED
> that TIME can be a spatial dimension in the pseudo-riemannian geometry.
>
> But, as always say, MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS.
>
> That's why there are so many confused imbeciles in this forum: JanPB, you, Dono, Paul, Tom, etc.
>
> Because, as amateur desktop physicists, think that mathematics dictates the reality, which is NOT TRUE.
>
> Mathematics IS A BEAST that has to be controlled, so can work as a companion pet to describe reality with rational thinking.
> And this rational thinking forces to drop mathematical outcomes, even if correct, if they don't have a physical meaning.
>
> Can't say it in a more simple way.
Mathematics is a language that can be used to lie, and time dilation is a lie.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:18:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> ... time dilation is a lie.

And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly? You cranks NEVER have any evidence to offer in support of your claims... which renders them useless....

Again, there are many experiments that *do* support time dilation and you have yet to refute them.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:53:11 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> Well, in my view, saying relativity is false is exactly the same as saying it is wrong.

False: The absence of truth. Used it to describe something as untrue and factually incorrect, maybe done with an immoral purpose.
Wrong: The state of not being correct, that happens when describing something containing mistakes, without the intention to deceive.

> It does not matter, for you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "relativity is false". You can't just proclaim such a thing without evidence, that is how science works.

My evidence is heuristic, and produced through rational AND logical thinking over OBJECTIVE and MENSURABLE events.
I don't need the support or encouragement of any community on this mental activity, nor I have to move a finger to find physical evidence.
It's the force of pure reasoning, generated by a mind with vast resources of information and abilities to discern fallacies and sophistry.
The last mechanisms are the basis of relativity, a pseudo-science.

> Also, there are umpteen experiments that DO support relativity, and you have zero evidence that refutes any of those experiments.
>
> You are pretty much dead in the water here, don't you understand that?

Unless you can prove here that you are a witness or a first-hand actor in any of those experiments, you are just parroting what was
taught to you or that you read. In these cases, you chose to BELIEVE. In this case, your knowledge is based on FAITH, not rationality.

The mere assertion that what a ghost observer in any given frame of reference IS REAL, even when it's stated that IT'S PERCEIVED,
not measured, should put you into a deep state of introspection and decide (with all the tools of logic) if PERCEPTION OF REALITY
and REALITY are the same thing.

You can't claim that you perceive, at a distance, a given "reality of yours" and claim that such PERCEPTION is the reality of everyone else.
Not for nothing, perception is defined as a SUBJECTIVE assessment of what surrounds you. A camera, filming exactly what you perceive,
is an instrument for OBJECTIVE capture of events around you. And, in relativity, both interpretations are in FULL CONFLICT, which is a
matter of speculation in philosophical terms, not in logical terms.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:49:54 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:53:11 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Well, in my view, saying relativity is false is exactly the same as saying it is wrong.
> False: The absence of truth. Used it to describe something as untrue and factually incorrect, maybe done with an immoral purpose.
> Wrong: The state of not being correct, that happens when describing something containing mistakes, without the intention to deceive.
> > It does not matter, for you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "relativity is false". You can't just proclaim such a thing without evidence, that is how science works.
> My evidence is heuristic, and produced through rational AND logical thinking over OBJECTIVE and MENSURABLE events.
> I don't need the support or encouragement of any community on this mental activity, nor I have to move a finger to find physical evidence.
> It's the force of pure reasoning, generated by a mind with vast resources of information and abilities to discern fallacies and sophistry.
> The last mechanisms are the basis of relativity, a pseudo-science.
> > Also, there are umpteen experiments that DO support relativity, and you have zero evidence that refutes any of those experiments.
> >
> > You are pretty much dead in the water here, don't you understand that?
> Unless you can prove here that you are a witness or a first-hand actor in any of those experiments, you are just parroting what was
> taught to you or that you read. In these cases, you chose to BELIEVE. In this case, your knowledge is based on FAITH, not rationality.
>
> The mere assertion that what a ghost observer in any given frame of reference IS REAL, even when it's stated that IT'S PERCEIVED,
> not measured, should put you into a deep state of introspection and decide (with all the tools of logic) if PERCEPTION OF REALITY
> and REALITY are the same thing.
>
> You can't claim that you perceive, at a distance, a given "reality of yours" and claim that such PERCEPTION is the reality of everyone else.
> Not for nothing, perception is defined as a SUBJECTIVE assessment of what surrounds you. A camera, filming exactly what you perceive,
> is an instrument for OBJECTIVE capture of events around you. And, in relativity, both interpretations are in FULL CONFLICT, which is a
> matter of speculation in philosophical terms, not in logical terms.
Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not. For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity. The amount the atomic clocks are adjusted is determined empirically and not predicted by relativity. Experiments presume one part of relativity to prove another. E.g. Muons are interpreted as time dilated because relativity presumes nothing can go faster than light. Gravity is proven to go faster than light. Relativity has only hindered the progress of physics and cosmology. Why Paul Alsing thinks otherwise, I don't know, but I don't stand to learn much from him.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:49:54 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:53:11 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Well, in my view, saying relativity is false is exactly the same as saying it is wrong.

> False: The absence of truth. Used it to describe something as untrue and factually incorrect, maybe done with an immoral purpose.
> Wrong: The state of not being correct, that happens when describing something containing mistakes, without the intention to deceive.

> > It does not matter, for you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "relativity is false". You can't just proclaim such a thing without evidence, that is how science works.

> My evidence is heuristic, and produced through rational AND logical thinking over OBJECTIVE and MENSURABLE events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

"Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision.... examples that employ heuristics include using trial and error, a rule of thumb or an educated guess."

You are kidding, right? You call this scientific? No evidence required, right? To make an educated guess one must first of all actually be educated!

As I have said in the past, if you don't FULLY understand a theory you have no business criticizing that theory... so agaoin, you are dead in the water.

> > Also, there are umpteen experiments that DO support relativity, and you have zero evidence that refutes any of those experiments.
> >
> > You are pretty much dead in the water here, don't you understand that?

> Unless you can prove here that you are a witness or a first-hand actor in any of those experiments, you are just parroting what was
> taught to you or that you read. In these cases, you chose to BELIEVE. In this case, your knowledge is based on FAITH, not rationality.

Yes, I agree, I am parroting what mainstream science has to offer, but you have not refuted anything that mainstream science says, and the chance that you can do so is infinitesimal.

Evidence rules, and you have none at all.

<rest of verbal diarrea snipped>

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 9:49:54 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:53:11 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > Well, in my view, saying relativity is false is exactly the same as saying it is wrong.
>
> False: The absence of truth. Used it to describe something as untrue and factually
> incorrect, maybe done with an immoral purpose.

Experimental evidence refutes your FALSE assertion.

> Wrong: The state of not being correct, that happens when describing something
> containing mistakes, without the intention to deceive.
>
> > It does not matter, for you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that
> > "relativity is false". You can't just proclaim such a thing without evidence, that is
> > how science works.
>
> My evidence is heuristic, and produced through rational AND logical thinking over
> OBJECTIVE and MENSURABLE events.

And THAT'S where your assertion falls apart:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

> I don't need the support or encouragement of any community on this mental activity,

Sure you do. Otherwise, you are fooling yourself:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are
the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

> nor I have to move a finger to find physical evidence.

I don't have to either since the physical evidence is published for anyone to peruse.

> It's the force of pure reasoning, generated by a mind with vast resources of
> information and abilities to discern fallacies and sophistry.

But since you are the easiest person to fool, and you have misused the vast resources,
you are like the economists who predicted nine of the last five recessions.

> The last mechanisms are the basis of relativity, a pseudo-science.

Based on all of the postulates, it follows logically. And the postulates appear to be borne
out by observation, too.

> > Also, there are umpteen experiments that DO support relativity, and you have zero
> > evidence that refutes any of those experiments.
> >
> > You are pretty much dead in the water here, don't you understand that?
>
> Unless you can prove here that you are a witness or a first-hand actor in any of those
> experiments, you are just parroting what was taught to you or that you read. In these
> cases, you chose to BELIEVE. In this case, your knowledge is based on FAITH, not rationality.

Not so. That's not how science works. The FIRST experiment that confirms a theory
only focuses attention. Science works by independent confirmation.

> The mere assertion that what a ghost observer in any given frame of reference IS REAL, even
> when it's stated that IT'S PERCEIVED, not measured, should put you into a deep state of
> introspection and decide (with all the tools of logic) if PERCEPTION OF REALITY and REALITY
> are the same thing.

So you DO believe that you are the easiest person to be fooled :-)

But you're again misrepresenting science. Science uses instruments that MEASURE pertinent
parameters.

> You can't claim that you perceive, at a distance, a given "reality of yours" and claim that such
> PERCEPTION is the reality of everyone else.

That's a misrepresentation of relativity. As many observers as necessary are located thoughout
the domain to be investigated. Data is recorded and compiled to determine the outcome.

> Not for nothing, perception is defined as a SUBJECTIVE assessment of what surrounds you.
> A camera, filming exactly what you perceive, is an instrument for OBJECTIVE capture of events
> around you. And, in relativity, both interpretations are in FULL CONFLICT, which is a matter of
> speculation in philosophical terms, not in logical terms.

This is a gross misrepresentation of relativity. It is FALSE, perhaps done with an immoral purpose.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 9:19:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:49:54 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:53:11 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Well, in my view, saying relativity is false is exactly the same as saying it is wrong.
> > False: The absence of truth. Used it to describe something as untrue and factually incorrect, maybe done with an immoral purpose.
> > Wrong: The state of not being correct, that happens when describing something containing mistakes, without the intention to deceive.
> > > It does not matter, for you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "relativity is false". You can't just proclaim such a thing without evidence, that is how science works.
> > My evidence is heuristic, and produced through rational AND logical thinking over OBJECTIVE and MENSURABLE events.
> > I don't need the support or encouragement of any community on this mental activity, nor I have to move a finger to find physical evidence.
> > It's the force of pure reasoning, generated by a mind with vast resources of information and abilities to discern fallacies and sophistry.
> > The last mechanisms are the basis of relativity, a pseudo-science.
> > > Also, there are umpteen experiments that DO support relativity, and you have zero evidence that refutes any of those experiments.
> > >
> > > You are pretty much dead in the water here, don't you understand that?
> > Unless you can prove here that you are a witness or a first-hand actor in any of those experiments, you are just parroting what was
> > taught to you or that you read. In these cases, you chose to BELIEVE. In this case, your knowledge is based on FAITH, not rationality.
> >
> > The mere assertion that what a ghost observer in any given frame of reference IS REAL, even when it's stated that IT'S PERCEIVED,
> > not measured, should put you into a deep state of introspection and decide (with all the tools of logic) if PERCEPTION OF REALITY
> > and REALITY are the same thing.
> >
> > You can't claim that you perceive, at a distance, a given "reality of yours" and claim that such PERCEPTION is the reality of everyone else.
> > Not for nothing, perception is defined as a SUBJECTIVE assessment of what surrounds you. A camera, filming exactly what you perceive,
> > is an instrument for OBJECTIVE capture of events around you. And, in relativity, both interpretations are in FULL CONFLICT, which is a
> > matter of speculation in philosophical terms, not in logical terms.

> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not. For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity. The amount the atomic clocks are adjusted is determined empirically and not predicted by relativity. Experiments presume one part of relativity to prove another. E.g. Muons are interpreted as time dilated because relativity presumes nothing can go faster than light. Gravity is proven to go faster than light. Relativity has only hindered the progress of physics and cosmology. Why Paul Alsing thinks otherwise, I don't know, but I don't stand to learn much from him.

You have no evidence to support ANY of those claims, do yo? At least, you have not presented any here... You know, evidence in the form of observations and/or experiments that you can share with the rest of us?

Tell us... why is it that GPS actually works?

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:49:54 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Unless you can prove here that you are a witness or a first-hand actor in any of those experiments, you are just parroting what was
> taught to you or that you read. In these cases, you chose to BELIEVE. In this case, your knowledge is based on FAITH, not rationality.

As a former high school science fair judge who on several
occasions attended regional competitions and once a
statewide competition, I have personally seen the working
apparatuses and read the poster reports of
1) Several repetitions of the MMX, once at the high school
and at least once or possibly twice (depending on whether
you count the MMX in air mounted on top of a car as a
"repetition") at the regional level.
2) One Majorana-style test of emission theory with revolving
diode lasers scavenged from laser pointers at the
regionals.
3) One very nice repetition of the Hughes-Drever experiment
at the regionals.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 01:12:42 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 3:11:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein's relativity will be completely discarded and forgotten within another hundred years.
> > It's of no value, so nothing has to supersede it. It only needs to be discarded.
> Are you claiming that Einstein's relativity has *never* been used to further science, has never benefited mankind, or has never resulted in any marketable product?? Are you claiming that nothing in your life exists because of Einstein's relativity?
>
> It would be my own claim that unless you fully understand a theory you are in no position to criticize it, and you clearly do not understand relativity.

Get conscious, man. What The Shit is provided
to mankind are insane screams that real
solutions we have are broken and improper.