On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:24:18 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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.

The same goes for you, Woz, as it does for me and virtually everyone else. If you do not fully understand the model then you have no basis to attempt to discredit it. You cannot possibly demonstrate exactly what is broken and improper. Not going to happen.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 07:48:45 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:24:18 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > 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.
> The same goes for you, Woz, as it does for me and virtually everyone else.. If you do not fully understand the model then you have no basis to attempt to discredit it.

Sorry, Al. I have enough basis to prove that the
mumble of your idiot guru was inconsistent.
And the only thing you or your fellow idiots
can do about it - is pretending that you didn't
notice.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 07:48:45 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:24:18 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > 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.
> > The same goes for you, Woz, as it does for me and virtually everyone else. If you do not fully understand the model then you have no basis to attempt to discredit it.

> Sorry, Al. I have enough basis to prove that the
> mumble of your idiot guru was inconsistent.
> And the only thing you or your fellow idiots
> can do about it - is pretending that you didn't
> notice.

Talk is cheap, Woz... and evidence comesconly in the form of observations experiments, of which you have none...

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 08:36:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 07:48:45 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:24:18 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > The same goes for you, Woz, as it does for me and virtually everyone else. If you do not fully understand the model then you have no basis to attempt to discredit it.
>
> > Sorry, Al. I have enough basis to prove that the
> > mumble of your idiot guru was inconsistent.
> > And the only thing you or your fellow idiots
> > can do about it - is pretending that you didn't
> > notice.
> Talk is cheap, Woz... and evidence comesconly in the form of observations experiments

Talk is cheap. Al, but - a mistake again.
Whatever your precious experiments are
doesn't change the fact that your Giant
Guru was a mumbling inconsistently idiot,
what I have proven.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 1:23:21 AM UTC-3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 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.

In the past, I was a spectator of shows of illusionists, like the Master David Copperfield. Mind-boggling acts,
which were/are living proofs of how the mind can be deceived by manipulating its mechanisms of perception.

I've read papers of first class physicists from the last century, explaining some aspects of relativity. Most, if not
all of them, in a given part they CAREFULLY expressed: "That IS PERCEIVED by the observer at relative rest".

Two things that almost everyone has in common with others: 1) They are gullible people, which goes in hand with
conformism, and 2) Almost ALL of them have a "herd mentality" (it's in the DNA), which make them feel safe if they
are not contradicting the mainstream understanding.

People, scientists or not, are afraid to be labelled as anti-social or anti-system if they express their inner, conflicting views.

Enough for me.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 1:43:39 AM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> 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.

YOU SEE WANT YOU WANT TO SEE, IF IT CONFIRMS YOUR FAITH.
THIS IS WHAT ANY RELIGION PROVIDES TO THE MIND AND SOUL OF BELIEVERS.
SUBJECTIVE, ADEQUATE TO FIT IN THE MENTAL BOX OF THOUGHTS THAT STORE YOUR CREDENCE.
AND THIS IS A UNIVERSAL TRUTH, ALWAYS HAPPENED AND ALWAYS WILL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Drever_experiment

Modern interpretation of Hughes–Drever experiment

While the motivation for this experiment was to test Mach's principle, it has since become recognized as an important test of Lorentz invariance and thus special relativity. This is because anisotropy effects also occur in the presence of a preferred and Lorentz-violating frame of reference – usually identified with the CMBR rest frame as some sort of luminiferous aether (relative velocity about 368 km/s). Therefore, the negative results of the Hughes–Drever experiments (as well as the Michelson–Morley experiments) rule out the existence of such a frame. In particular, Hughes–Drever tests of Lorentz violations are often described by a test theory of special relativity put forward by Clifford Will. According to this model, Lorentz violations in the presence of preferred frames can lead to differences between the maximal attainable velocity of massive particles and the speed of light. If they were different, the properties and frequencies of matter interactions would change as well. In addition, it is a fundamental consequence of the equivalence principle of general relativity that Lorentz invariance locally holds in freely moving reference frames = local Lorentz invariance (LLI). This means that the results of this experiment concern both special and general relativity.[A 1][A 2]

Due to the fact that different frequencies ("clocks") are compared, these experiments are also denoted as clock-comparison experiments.[A 3][A 4]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

Real physics/science: Once a respectable amount of experimental and observational data has been collected, after Newton, real
scientists (not psychologists or pseudo-philosophers) develop one or many mathematical models THAT FIT THE COLLECTED DATA.
And this includes classic physics, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, solid state physics and so on, as of TODAY.

Pseudo-physics/science: Based on any given insight, which might be just crazy, a theoretical model is developed in order TO USE
MATHEMATICS TO EXPLAIN PHYSICS. Then, PREDICTIONS for the models are made and legions of "fame-seeking" cretins try to
develop absurd experiments AND FORCE THE RESULTS TO FIT THE THEORETICAL MODEL. Examples: Special and general
relativity, BBT, early universe INFLATION, universe expansion.

Relativity was a primer: Einstein's three predictions, EVEN BEFORE THE MODEL WAS DEVELOPED (starlight deflection by the Sun,
Mercury's perihelion phenomena explanation and red-shifting of light due to gravity), mark THE BEGINNING OF THE DARK AGES
IN SCIENCE, where any IMBECILE (desktop physicist wannabe) can propose ANY IDIOTIC CONCEPT. History has shown that any
theoretical proposal, not sustained by the slightest experimental evidence, WILL FIND OPPORTUNISTS that will make the data
FIT THE THEORY (exactly opposed as in real science). Some examples: SR, GR, BBT, neutrinos, E=mc2, quarks and gluon, string
theory, quantum gravity, Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model, etc.

Relativity started, officially, this degenerate way to make science, which will vanish as time pass.

On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.

Because you say so?

> For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity.

Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).
They ran using no clock offset for 20 days and determined it didn't
work. They switched in the GR compensation and it worked great. A very
simple experiment, but an experiment nonetheless.

> The amount the atomic clocks are adjusted is determined empirically and not predicted by relativity.

Nope. It was predicted by relativity beforehand that at the orbital
altitude and speed of the GPS satellites, that there would be a -7µS/day
time dilation due to satellite velocity and 45µS/day due to
gravitational potential, adding to 38µS/day.

The GNSS systems of other countries use different orbital altitudes (and
speeds) so they have to use different numbers for the speed and
altitude, but they are calculated by using what relativity predicts. And
they work.

> 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.

No, we can measure the speed of the muons, and they are moving at just
under light speed. Yet they can make it much farther than they should be
able to if there was no time dilation. It's not that nothing can move
faster than light, it is known that the muons don't move faster than
light, from measurements.

> Gravity is proven to go faster than light.

Gravity is predicted to propagate at light speed. A near-simultaneous
GRB and LIGO event confirms this. I don't know what "proof" you are
talking about.

> Relativity has only hindered the progress of physics and cosmology.

Crankspeak.

> Why Paul Alsing thinks otherwise, I don't know,

Because he has looked at and understood the evidence?

> but I don't stand to learn much from him.

You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:37:25 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 1:43:39 AM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Drever_experiment
>
> Modern interpretation of Hughes–Drever experiment
>
> While the motivation for this experiment was to test Mach's principle, it has since become recognized as an important test of Lorentz invariance and thus special relativity. This is because anisotropy effects also occur in the presence of a preferred and Lorentz-violating frame of reference – usually identified with the CMBR rest frame as some sort of luminiferous aether (relative velocity about 368 km/s). Therefore, the negative results of the Hughes–Drever experiments (as well as the Michelson–Morley experiments) rule out the existence of such a frame. In particular, Hughes–Drever tests of Lorentz violations are often described by a test theory of special relativity put forward by Clifford Will. According to this model, Lorentz violations in the presence of preferred frames can lead to differences between the maximal attainable velocity of massive particles and the speed of light. If they were different, the properties and frequencies of matter interactions would change as well. In addition, it is a fundamental consequence of the equivalence principle of general relativity that Lorentz invariance locally holds in freely moving reference frames = local Lorentz invariance (LLI). This means that the results of this experiment concern both special and general relativity.[A 1][A 2]
>
> Due to the fact that different frequencies ("clocks") are compared, these experiments are also denoted as clock-comparison experiments.[A 3][A 4]

I remember working on this article with D.H ten years or so
ago. D.H was the senior partner in a four-year collaboration
that expanded and improved many articles on experiments
testing special (and general) relativity. D.H did most of the
writing and mathematical demonstrations. My main role
was to "translate" his German-English into standard English
and to add lots of illustrations, most of them my original
work. In this particular case, I found the illustration online,
contacted the author and obtained his permission.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 18:28:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.
> Because you say so?
> > For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity.
> Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
> for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
> MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
> general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).

Well, usual lie of stupid Mike. The switching
was made in exactly opposite direction - from
"proper time" of his idiot gurus to ordinary t'=t.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:16:58 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 1:23:21 AM UTC-3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > 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

No comment, Richard?

> > > 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

No comment, Richard?

> > > 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.

No comment, Richard?

> > > > 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.

No comment, Richard?

> > > 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.

No comment, Richard?

> > > 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
> > th[r]oughout the domain to be investigated. Data is recorded and compiled to
> > determine the outcome.

No comment, Richard?

> > > 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.
>
> In the past, I was a spectator of shows of illusionists, like the Master David Copperfield. Mind-
> boggling acts, which were/are living proofs of how the mind can be deceived by manipulating
> its mechanisms of perception.

But you didn't observe them with scientific instruments, did you. like a high-speed camera?

> I've read papers of first class physicists from the last century, explaining some aspects of
> relativity. Most, if not all of them, in a given part they CAREFULLY expressed: "That IS PERCEIVED
> by the observer at relative rest".

Perhaps your definition of "perceived" isn't the same as that of the physicists. Physicists use
INSTRUMENTS to "perceive" phenomena. You know, like high-speed cameras, etc.

> Two things that almost everyone has in common with others: 1) They are gullible people, which
> goes in hand with conformism, and 2) Almost ALL of them have a "herd mentality" (it's in the DNA),
> which make them feel safe if they are not contradicting the mainstream understanding.

You're describing Dono, not me :-)

> People, scientists or not, are afraid to be labelled as anti-social or anti-system if they express their
> inner, conflicting views.

That may apply to many working physicists since their reputation is fragile.. It doesn't apply to some
who publish concepts that challenge the mainstream view.

> Enough for me.

No, it's not, Richard. You've not addressed items that fatally challenge your mindset:

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

No comment, Richard?

> > > 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.

No comment, Richard?

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

No comment, Richard?

Your failure to address these issues indicates to me that you're not really serious.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
<hertz778@gmail.com> 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"

Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!

>
>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)

Math doesn't exist except in the mind of men. Math is an illusion.

>
>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

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
> <hertz778@gmail.com> 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"
>
> Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
> of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!
>
> >
> >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)
>
> Math doesn't exist except in the mind of men. Math is an illusion.

The operative word is...Philosophy/Philosophiae.

"philosophy" means, an activity people undertake when they seek to
understand fundamental truths about *themselves*, the world in which
*they* live, and their "relationships to the world" and to *each other*.

Math is Philosophiae. Math doesn't exist except in the mind of
men...themselves, world in which *they* live (inner wourld). Inner mind.

>
> >
> >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

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
> > <hertz778@gmail.com> 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"
> >
> > Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
> > of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!
> >
> > >
> > >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)
> >
> > Math doesn't exist except in the mind of men. Math is an illusion.
>
> The operative word is...Philosophy/Philosophiae.
>
> "philosophy" means, an activity people undertake when they seek to
> understand fundamental truths about *themselves*, the world in which
> *they* live, and their "relationships to the world" and to *each other*.
>
> Math is Philosophiae. Math doesn't exist except in the mind of
> men...themselves, world in which *they* live (inner wourld). Inner mind.

Now, just because you take Math from your inner wolrd and it seems to
work on the outer world doesn't mean Math exist out there...

it just nature keeping it looking real for you. It's just an illusion.
It's a trick. A Mathematical 'trick'.

trick
/trik/
noun

a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit
someone.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&sxsrf=APwXEdc6C48z_G96CQsBBRg3c3lDFT2z5Q%3A1684711688262&q=define+trick

Albert Einstein is very good at making a mathematical trick...fools yous
all the time.

Time dialation...just a trick.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 5/20/2023 3:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 18:28:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.
>> Because you say so?
>>> For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity.
>> Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
>> for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
>> MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
>> general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
>> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).
>
> Well, usual lie of stupid Mike. The switching
> was made in exactly opposite direction - from
> "proper time" of his idiot gurus to ordinary t'=t.

There you go again, janitor. You get everything backwards by stating
what actually happened was backwards.

Once again: The satellite was launched with its atomic clock set exactly
the same as every single other atomic clock in the world. Just as
Newton would say to do. It didn't work. When the virtual switch was
switched, accounting for the GR predicted by Einstein, it then worked.
Relativity vindicated again!

On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 18:10:40 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 5/20/2023 3:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 18:28:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.
> >> Because you say so?
> >>> For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity..
> >> Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
> >> for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
> >> MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
> >> general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
> >> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).
> >
> > Well, usual lie of stupid Mike. The switching
> > was made in exactly opposite direction - from
> > "proper time" of his idiot gurus to ordinary t'=t.
> There you go again, janitor. You get everything backwards by stating
> what actually happened was backwards.

Oppositely, you get everything backwards by stating
that 9 192 631 770, i.e your ISO/proper time idiocy - is
some "Newton mode". At least you're ashamed of that
and denying, but google keeps record, stupid Mike.

On Sunday, April 30, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Isaac Newton (1687)

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-New-Hackett-Aristotle/dp/1624666914/ref=pd_vtp_h_vft_none_pd_vtp_h_vft_none_sccl_3/131-6782286-7462123

Aristotle's ideas still dominate, to this day -

"So, you were stationary, and the HIGHWAY was moving 80 mph?
Tell your story to the judge, pal!"

--
Rich

On 5/22/2023 1:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 18:10:40 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/20/2023 3:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 18:28:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.
>>>> Because you say so?
>>>>> For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity.
>>>> Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
>>>> for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
>>>> MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
>>>> general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
>>>> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).
>>>
>>> Well, usual lie of stupid Mike. The switching
>>> was made in exactly opposite direction - from
>>> "proper time" of his idiot gurus to ordinary t'=t.
>> There you go again, janitor. You get everything backwards by stating
>> what actually happened was backwards.
>
> Oppositely, you get everything backwards by stating
> that 9 192 631 770, i.e your ISO/proper time idiocy - is
> some "Newton mode".

Once again, that's not even wrong. Newtonian time is simply all clocks
(are observed to) tick at the same rate no matter where they are or how
fast they are moving. Time is the same everywhere. Correct clocks all
tick in lockstep. No time dilation, no gravitational time effects, no
relativity of simultaneity, no SR, no GR. Do you agree with that, Janitor?

Let's do one thing at a time. Do you agree with that description of time
under Newtonian physics?

> At least you're ashamed of that
> and denying, but google keeps record, stupid Mike.

Something that's "not even wrong" cannot be denied or affirmed, either.
>

On Tuesday, 23 May 2023 at 00:56:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 5/22/2023 1:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 18:10:40 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 5/20/2023 3:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 18:28:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.
> >>>> Because you say so?
> >>>>> For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity.
> >>>> Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
> >>>> for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
> >>>> MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
> >>>> general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
> >>>> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).
> >>>
> >>> Well, usual lie of stupid Mike. The switching
> >>> was made in exactly opposite direction - from
> >>> "proper time" of his idiot gurus to ordinary t'=t.
> >> There you go again, janitor. You get everything backwards by stating
> >> what actually happened was backwards.
> >
> > Oppositely, you get everything backwards by stating
> > that 9 192 631 770, i.e your ISO/proper time idiocy - is
> > some "Newton mode".
> Once again, that's not even wrong.

Once again, that IS wrong and you wrote it
many times. Wanna quotings?
At least you're ashamed and denying, but
google keeps record, stupid Mike.

> Newtonian time is simply all clocks
> (are observed to) tick at the same rate no matter where they are or how
> fast they are moving.

No, stupid Mike. No sane people ever cared about
how clock tick. What matters is what they indicate.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
> <hertz778@gmail.com> 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"
>
> Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
> of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!

Let me expand on Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity...

"Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." -Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905

This paper introduced the famous equation E=mc² and explored the concept of mass-energy equivalence.

The idea behind this proposal is rooted in Einstein's theory of mass-energy equivalence, as encapsulated in the equation E=mc².
Einstein's equation, E=mc², states that energy (E) is equal to the mass (m) of an object multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared.
This equation demonstrates the equivalence of mass and energy, revealing that a small amount of mass can be converted into a large amount of energy and vice versa.

In Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905 , Einstein suggests that it might be possible to experimentally verify his theory by using substances like radium salts.
Radium is a radioactive element that undergoes spontaneous disintegration or decay, releasing energy in the form of radiation.
By studying the behavior of radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein hypothesized
that it could be feasible to observe changes in their mass as a result of the energy emitted during radioactive decay.

By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.

It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas.

In the atomic bomb, the principle of nuclear fission is employed. Nuclear fission involves the splitting of atomic nuclei, typically isotopes
of uranium or plutonium, into smaller fragments.
During this process, a small amount of mass is converted into an enormous amount of energy, as predicted by Einstein's equation.

The atomic bomb utilizes a chain reaction of nuclear fission. In the bomb's core, a critical mass of fissile material, such as enriched uranium-235 or
plutonium-239, is assembled.
The release of a neutron into the nucleus of a fissile atom initiates the fission process. This causes the nucleus to split into two smaller fragments, releasing
additional neutrons and a substantial amount of energy.

The energy released in each fission reaction is immense and is primarily in the form of kinetic energy of the resulting fragments, as well as the energy carried by the released neutrons.
The energy release from a single fission reaction is relatively small, but the key is to achieve a chain reaction where each fission event triggers further fission
events, leading to a rapid and uncontrolled release of energy.

To ensure a sustained chain reaction, the fissile material must be enriched to contain a sufficient concentration of the specific isotopes capable of sustaining the reaction.
Additionally, the bomb's design incorporates mechanisms to bring the fissile material into a supercritical mass and to control the rate of neutron release, such as through the use of neutron reflectors and moderators.

This principle formed the scientific basis for harnessing the energy released through nuclear fission, which is at the core of the atomic bomb's destructive power.

At the time, radium was a known radioactive element that emitted radiation and was associated with the release of energy.
Einstein's suggestion to test his theory using radium salts was based on the understanding that radioactive materials, like radium,
undergo spontaneous disintegration, resulting in the emission of radiation and the release of energy.

By using radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein envisioned conducting experiments to observe whether there would be any detectable changes in
the mass of the radioactive substances as they emitted energy. Such experiments would provide empirical evidence to support or
validate his mass-energy equivalence theory, as described by the equation E=mc².

The experimental verification of E=mc² and the mass-energy equivalence principle came through subsequent research in
nuclear physics and particle physics, as well as advancements in technology and experimental techniques.

Einstein's earlier contribution to the theory of mass-energy equivalence and his recognition of the substantial energy released by
processes such as radioactive decay, which ultimately played a role in the development of nuclear reactions and the understanding of the atomic bomb's destructive potential.

In the early 1940s, Einstein was asked to serve as a consultant to the US military on the development of weapons, including
the potential use of nuclear energy as a weapon. He agreed to lend his expertise to the effort and worked with a team of scientists at the Army's
laboratory in Washington, D.C., where he helped to develop the first theories about how a nuclear weapon might be designed. However,
Einstein did not have any direct involvement in the construction or testing of nuclear weapons. He was not a member of the Manhattan Project,
the top-secret US government research program that developed the first atomic bombs. Instead, he served as a
consultant and provided his expertise on the theoretical aspects of nuclear weapons development.

However, the details of Einstein's work and the specific contributions he made to the military's weapons development
program have not been widely disclosed. It is likely that much of the information about Einstein's work for the military remains classified to this day.

Nonetheless, Einstein's original 1905 paper demonstrated his forward-thinking and his eagerness to explore experimental avenues to test and
validate his revolutionary theory of mass-energy equivalence.

By setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.

This would lead to the construction of bombs, extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed called... Atomic Bombs.

A single bomb of this might very well destroy Ukraine together with some of the surrounding countries.

In summary, Einstein's equation, E=mc², established the fundamental understanding that a small amount of mass can be converted into an enormous amount of energy that would lead to the construction of Atomic Bombs.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Now, Albert Einstein's entire goal of his life was to have the Atomic bomb...built.

But he had 'secrets' he never told anybody. Because if 'his secret' was revealed...
the atomic bomb would have not been built.

What is that secret? that he kept to himself??

That Uranium radiation...KILLS PEOPLE!!!!

Did you know when the first atomic bomb was built...nobody had protection suits on?

Nobody at the Manhattan Project wore raidation protection suits!

Einstein kept the secret to himself because he knew all his friends at the Manhattan Project would run away.

He said to himself...'Fuck it. It's the price you pay for Science.'

It's like when you don't tell a girl you're not wearing a condom.

You think..."Fuck it, let her get pregnant!"

Me is number one.

I mean, in the 1930's...practically everybody who got near that stuff...died.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
> > <hertz778@gmail.com> 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"
> >
> > Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
> > of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!
>
> Let me expand on Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity...
>
> "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." -Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905
>
> This paper introduced the famous equation E=mc² and explored the concept of mass-energy equivalence.
>
> The idea behind this proposal is rooted in Einstein's theory of mass-energy equivalence, as encapsulated in the equation E=mc².
> Einstein's equation, E=mc², states that energy (E) is equal to the mass (m) of an object multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared.
> This equation demonstrates the equivalence of mass and energy, revealing that a small amount of mass can be converted into a large amount of energy and vice versa.
>
> In Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905 , Einstein suggests that it might be possible to experimentally verify his theory by using substances like radium salts.
> Radium is a radioactive element that undergoes spontaneous disintegration or decay, releasing energy in the form of radiation.
> By studying the behavior of radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein hypothesized
> that it could be feasible to observe changes in their mass as a result of the energy emitted during radioactive decay.
>
> By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
> conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
> However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
> have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
>
> It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas.
>
> In the atomic bomb, the principle of nuclear fission is employed. Nuclear fission involves the splitting of atomic nuclei, typically isotopes
> of uranium or plutonium, into smaller fragments.
> During this process, a small amount of mass is converted into an enormous amount of energy, as predicted by Einstein's equation.
>
> The atomic bomb utilizes a chain reaction of nuclear fission. In the bomb's core, a critical mass of fissile material, such as enriched uranium-235 or
> plutonium-239, is assembled.
> The release of a neutron into the nucleus of a fissile atom initiates the fission process. This causes the nucleus to split into two smaller fragments, releasing
> additional neutrons and a substantial amount of energy.
>
> The energy released in each fission reaction is immense and is primarily in the form of kinetic energy of the resulting fragments, as well as the energy carried by the released neutrons.
> The energy release from a single fission reaction is relatively small, but the key is to achieve a chain reaction where each fission event triggers further fission
> events, leading to a rapid and uncontrolled release of energy.
>
> To ensure a sustained chain reaction, the fissile material must be enriched to contain a sufficient concentration of the specific isotopes capable of sustaining the reaction.
> Additionally, the bomb's design incorporates mechanisms to bring the fissile material into a supercritical mass and to control the rate of neutron release, such as through the use of neutron reflectors and moderators.
>
> This principle formed the scientific basis for harnessing the energy released through nuclear fission, which is at the core of the atomic bomb's destructive power.
>
> At the time, radium was a known radioactive element that emitted radiation and was associated with the release of energy.
> Einstein's suggestion to test his theory using radium salts was based on the understanding that radioactive materials, like radium,
> undergo spontaneous disintegration, resulting in the emission of radiation and the release of energy.
>
> By using radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein envisioned conducting experiments to observe whether there would be any detectable changes in
> the mass of the radioactive substances as they emitted energy. Such experiments would provide empirical evidence to support or
> validate his mass-energy equivalence theory, as described by the equation E=mc².
>
> The experimental verification of E=mc² and the mass-energy equivalence principle came through subsequent research in
> nuclear physics and particle physics, as well as advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
>
> Einstein's earlier contribution to the theory of mass-energy equivalence and his recognition of the substantial energy released by
> processes such as radioactive decay, which ultimately played a role in the development of nuclear reactions and the understanding of the atomic bomb's destructive potential.
>
> In the early 1940s, Einstein was asked to serve as a consultant to the US military on the development of weapons, including
> the potential use of nuclear energy as a weapon. He agreed to lend his expertise to the effort and worked with a team of scientists at the Army's
> laboratory in Washington, D.C., where he helped to develop the first theories about how a nuclear weapon might be designed. However,
> Einstein did not have any direct involvement in the construction or testing of nuclear weapons. He was not a member of the Manhattan Project,
> the top-secret US government research program that developed the first atomic bombs. Instead, he served as a
> consultant and provided his expertise on the theoretical aspects of nuclear weapons development.
>
> However, the details of Einstein's work and the specific contributions he made to the military's weapons development
> program have not been widely disclosed. It is likely that much of the information about Einstein's work for the military remains classified to this day.
>
> Nonetheless, Einstein's original 1905 paper demonstrated his forward-thinking and his eagerness to explore experimental avenues to test and
> validate his revolutionary theory of mass-energy equivalence.
>
> By setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.
>
> This would lead to the construction of bombs, extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed called... Atomic Bombs.
>
> A single bomb of this might very well destroy Ukraine together with some of the surrounding countries.
>
> In summary, Einstein's equation, E=mc², established the fundamental understanding that a small amount of mass can be converted into an enormous amount of energy that would lead to the construction of Atomic Bombs.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Knowing what Einstein knows...
why would he risk going to
work on the Manhattan Project?

It's RADIOACTIVE!!!

Now, is there anybody HERE that will say...
"Albert Einstein had no idea that Urainium
raidation KILLS people if they got near it?"???

It glows in the dark!

There were girls
that worked at
radium dial painting factory in New Jersey
wetting the tip of the brush
with their mouth
in order to get a nice clean figure
on the dials.

(i don't even want to say what happen to these girls)

I bet Albert Einstein told all his friends
at the Manhattan Project..

"Come on, a little uranium is not going to hurt you."

I feel sick.

"very young women -- 19 years old, 18 years old, 20 years old -- coming into his dentistry office.
Their teeth were falling out, their gums were badly infected and bleeding profusely, they were anemic, their bones were soft, and in some cases their jawbones had spontaneously fractured. Some of them died of severe anemia."

"By the 1930s it had been established that this epidemic of lung cancer and other lung diseases was caused by breathing radioactive materials in the atmosphere of the mine."

"The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate

quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia.

while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo." --Albert Einstein August 2nd 1939

'the price of radium in the 1920s was $100,000 a gram'

"Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." -Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905

'A single bomb of this type might very well destroy Ukraine together with some of the surrounding countries.'

Putin wants to drop the atomic bomb on those nazi's in Ukraine.

Albert Einstein wants to drop the atomic bomb on those Nazi's in Germany.

Iran wants to drop the atomic bomb on those nazi's in Israel.

What do you people have against Nazi's? They were very funny in F-Troup.

You give a Nazi a couple of cartons of cigarettes and they let you watch girls taking a shower naked!

Everyone knows the Nazi Political Party today are called...The Democratic Party!

The Democratic Party founded the KKK. dats a fact jack!

The FBI today is the Gestapol.

Gestapo Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › gestapo
The meaning of GESTAPO is a secret-police organization employing underhanded and terrorist methods against persons suspected of disloyalty.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+gestapo

FBI secret police are irregular, leftwing/leftest group inside the fbi that
support, and are enforcers for The Biden Administration to harass
political opponents and persons suspected of disloyalty to the democractic party.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Now, Albert Einstein's entire goal of his life was to have the Atomic bomb...built.
>
> But he had 'secrets' he never told anybody. Because if 'his secret' was revealed...
> the atomic bomb would have not been built.
>
> What is that secret? that he kept to himself??
>
> That Uranium radiation...KILLS PEOPLE!!!!
>
> Did you know when the first atomic bomb was built...nobody had protection suits on?
>
> Nobody at the Manhattan Project wore raidation protection suits!
>
> Einstein kept the secret to himself because he knew all his friends at the Manhattan Project would run away.
>
> He said to himself...'Fuck it. It's the price you pay for Science.'
>
> It's like when you don't tell a girl you're not wearing a condom.
>
> You think..."Fuck it, let her get pregnant!"
>
> Me is number one.
>
> I mean, in the 1930's...practically everybody who got near that stuff...died.
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
> > > <hertz778@gmail.com> 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"
> > >
> > > Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
> > > of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!
> >
> > Let me expand on Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity...
> >
> > "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." -Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905
> >
> > This paper introduced the famous equation E=mc² and explored the concept of mass-energy equivalence.
> >
> > The idea behind this proposal is rooted in Einstein's theory of mass-energy equivalence, as encapsulated in the equation E=mc².
> > Einstein's equation, E=mc², states that energy (E) is equal to the mass (m) of an object multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared.
> > This equation demonstrates the equivalence of mass and energy, revealing that a small amount of mass can be converted into a large amount of energy and vice versa.
> >
> > In Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905 , Einstein suggests that it might be possible to experimentally verify his theory by using substances like radium salts.
> > Radium is a radioactive element that undergoes spontaneous disintegration or decay, releasing energy in the form of radiation.
> > By studying the behavior of radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein hypothesized
> > that it could be feasible to observe changes in their mass as a result of the energy emitted during radioactive decay.
> >
> > By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
> > conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
> > However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
> > have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
> >
> > It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas.
> >
> > In the atomic bomb, the principle of nuclear fission is employed. Nuclear fission involves the splitting of atomic nuclei, typically isotopes
> > of uranium or plutonium, into smaller fragments.
> > During this process, a small amount of mass is converted into an enormous amount of energy, as predicted by Einstein's equation.
> >
> > The atomic bomb utilizes a chain reaction of nuclear fission. In the bomb's core, a critical mass of fissile material, such as enriched uranium-235 or
> > plutonium-239, is assembled.
> > The release of a neutron into the nucleus of a fissile atom initiates the fission process. This causes the nucleus to split into two smaller fragments, releasing
> > additional neutrons and a substantial amount of energy.
> >
> > The energy released in each fission reaction is immense and is primarily in the form of kinetic energy of the resulting fragments, as well as the energy carried by the released neutrons.
> > The energy release from a single fission reaction is relatively small, but the key is to achieve a chain reaction where each fission event triggers further fission
> > events, leading to a rapid and uncontrolled release of energy.
> >
> > To ensure a sustained chain reaction, the fissile material must be enriched to contain a sufficient concentration of the specific isotopes capable of sustaining the reaction.
> > Additionally, the bomb's design incorporates mechanisms to bring the fissile material into a supercritical mass and to control the rate of neutron release, such as through the use of neutron reflectors and moderators.
> >
> > This principle formed the scientific basis for harnessing the energy released through nuclear fission, which is at the core of the atomic bomb's destructive power.
> >
> > At the time, radium was a known radioactive element that emitted radiation and was associated with the release of energy.
> > Einstein's suggestion to test his theory using radium salts was based on the understanding that radioactive materials, like radium,
> > undergo spontaneous disintegration, resulting in the emission of radiation and the release of energy.
> >
> > By using radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein envisioned conducting experiments to observe whether there would be any detectable changes in
> > the mass of the radioactive substances as they emitted energy. Such experiments would provide empirical evidence to support or
> > validate his mass-energy equivalence theory, as described by the equation E=mc².
> >
> > The experimental verification of E=mc² and the mass-energy equivalence principle came through subsequent research in
> > nuclear physics and particle physics, as well as advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
> >
> > Einstein's earlier contribution to the theory of mass-energy equivalence and his recognition of the substantial energy released by
> > processes such as radioactive decay, which ultimately played a role in the development of nuclear reactions and the understanding of the atomic bomb's destructive potential.
> >
> > In the early 1940s, Einstein was asked to serve as a consultant to the US military on the development of weapons, including
> > the potential use of nuclear energy as a weapon. He agreed to lend his expertise to the effort and worked with a team of scientists at the Army's
> > laboratory in Washington, D.C., where he helped to develop the first theories about how a nuclear weapon might be designed. However,
> > Einstein did not have any direct involvement in the construction or testing of nuclear weapons. He was not a member of the Manhattan Project,
> > the top-secret US government research program that developed the first atomic bombs. Instead, he served as a
> > consultant and provided his expertise on the theoretical aspects of nuclear weapons development.
> >
> > However, the details of Einstein's work and the specific contributions he made to the military's weapons development
> > program have not been widely disclosed. It is likely that much of the information about Einstein's work for the military remains classified to this day.
> >
> > Nonetheless, Einstein's original 1905 paper demonstrated his forward-thinking and his eagerness to explore experimental avenues to test and
> > validate his revolutionary theory of mass-energy equivalence.
> >
> > By setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.
> >
> > This would lead to the construction of bombs, extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed called... Atomic Bombs.
> >
> > A single bomb of this might very well destroy Ukraine together with some of the surrounding countries.
> >
> > In summary, Einstein's equation, E=mc², established the fundamental understanding that a small amount of mass can be converted into an enormous amount of energy that would lead to the construction of Atomic Bombs.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 4:11:17 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> 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.

The most printed book of all time starts with "what is the fundamental question of
metaphysics" or "why is there something rather than nothing" as for Leibniz and
Heidegger and Nozick and so on, giving an answer then proceeding.

It's similar with most all the mythoi of orgins and creation over time,
since antiquity. Of course it's various the direct connections to a
fundamental natural physics and science.

Then there's for example "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, ...."

Then, the theory of science itself is, pretty old, of course it's not just one book,
it's the canon, and a giant tower of giants to climb on, now with more NIST CODATA.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 11:53:53 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 06:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
> > <hert...@gmail.com> 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"
> >
> > Well, of course it is the most important publication in the history
> > of physics...it gave birth to...the Atomic Bomb!
> Let me expand on Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity...
>
>
> "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." -Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905
>
> This paper introduced the famous equation E=mc² and explored the concept of mass-energy equivalence.
>
> The idea behind this proposal is rooted in Einstein's theory of mass-energy equivalence, as encapsulated in the equation E=mc².
> Einstein's equation, E=mc², states that energy (E) is equal to the mass (m) of an object multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared.
> This equation demonstrates the equivalence of mass and energy, revealing that a small amount of mass can be converted into a large amount of energy and vice versa.
>
> In Einstein Theory of Relativity 1905 , Einstein suggests that it might be possible to experimentally verify his theory by using substances like radium salts.
> Radium is a radioactive element that undergoes spontaneous disintegration or decay, releasing energy in the form of radiation.
> By studying the behavior of radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein hypothesized
> that it could be feasible to observe changes in their mass as a result of the energy emitted during radioactive decay.
>
> By using substances like radium salts with variable energy content, Einstein envisioned experiments that could potentially demonstrate the
> conversion of mass into energy and validate his theory.
> However, it's important to note that while his proposal was conceptually sound, the exact experimental implementation and verification may
> have required further advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
>
> It reflects his curiosity and anticipation of future experiments at universities that could provide empirical evidence to support his groundbreaking ideas.
>
> In the atomic bomb, the principle of nuclear fission is employed. Nuclear fission involves the splitting of atomic nuclei, typically isotopes
> of uranium or plutonium, into smaller fragments.
> During this process, a small amount of mass is converted into an enormous amount of energy, as predicted by Einstein's equation.
>
> The atomic bomb utilizes a chain reaction of nuclear fission. In the bomb's core, a critical mass of fissile material, such as enriched uranium-235 or
> plutonium-239, is assembled.
> The release of a neutron into the nucleus of a fissile atom initiates the fission process. This causes the nucleus to split into two smaller fragments, releasing
> additional neutrons and a substantial amount of energy.
>
> The energy released in each fission reaction is immense and is primarily in the form of kinetic energy of the resulting fragments, as well as the energy carried by the released neutrons.
> The energy release from a single fission reaction is relatively small, but the key is to achieve a chain reaction where each fission event triggers further fission
> events, leading to a rapid and uncontrolled release of energy.
>
> To ensure a sustained chain reaction, the fissile material must be enriched to contain a sufficient concentration of the specific isotopes capable of sustaining the reaction.
> Additionally, the bomb's design incorporates mechanisms to bring the fissile material into a supercritical mass and to control the rate of neutron release, such as through the use of neutron reflectors and moderators.
>
>
> This principle formed the scientific basis for harnessing the energy released through nuclear fission, which is at the core of the atomic bomb's destructive power.
>
>
> At the time, radium was a known radioactive element that emitted radiation and was associated with the release of energy.
> Einstein's suggestion to test his theory using radium salts was based on the understanding that radioactive materials, like radium,
> undergo spontaneous disintegration, resulting in the emission of radiation and the release of energy.
>
> By using radium salts or similar radioactive materials, Einstein envisioned conducting experiments to observe whether there would be any detectable changes in
> the mass of the radioactive substances as they emitted energy. Such experiments would provide empirical evidence to support or
> validate his mass-energy equivalence theory, as described by the equation E=mc².
>
> The experimental verification of E=mc² and the mass-energy equivalence principle came through subsequent research in
> nuclear physics and particle physics, as well as advancements in technology and experimental techniques.
>
>
>
> Einstein's earlier contribution to the theory of mass-energy equivalence and his recognition of the substantial energy released by
> processes such as radioactive decay, which ultimately played a role in the development of nuclear reactions and the understanding of the atomic bomb's destructive potential.
>
> In the early 1940s, Einstein was asked to serve as a consultant to the US military on the development of weapons, including
> the potential use of nuclear energy as a weapon. He agreed to lend his expertise to the effort and worked with a team of scientists at the Army's
> laboratory in Washington, D.C., where he helped to develop the first theories about how a nuclear weapon might be designed. However,
> Einstein did not have any direct involvement in the construction or testing of nuclear weapons. He was not a member of the Manhattan Project,
> the top-secret US government research program that developed the first atomic bombs. Instead, he served as a
> consultant and provided his expertise on the theoretical aspects of nuclear weapons development.
>
> However, the details of Einstein's work and the specific contributions he made to the military's weapons development
> program have not been widely disclosed. It is likely that much of the information about Einstein's work for the military remains classified to this day.
>
> Nonetheless, Einstein's original 1905 paper demonstrated his forward-thinking and his eagerness to explore experimental avenues to test and
> validate his revolutionary theory of mass-energy equivalence.
>
> By setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.
>
> This would lead to the construction of bombs, extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed called... Atomic Bombs.
>
>
> A single bomb of this might very well destroy Ukraine together with some of the surrounding countries.
>
>
>
> In summary, Einstein's equation, E=mc², established the fundamental understanding that a small amount of mass can be converted into an enormous amount of energy that would lead to the construction of Atomic Bombs.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

It was an era of "The Fourth Dimension".

Which is a very liberating thing, abstractly. (Abstraction.)

On 5/23/2023 12:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 May 2023 at 00:56:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/22/2023 1:54 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 18:10:40 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2023 3:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 18:28:56 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 12:19 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experiments alleged to demonstrate relativity do not.
>>>>>> Because you say so?
>>>>>>> For example, GPS has not conducted any experiments to test relativity.
>>>>>> Very wrong. The first prototype GPS satellite was sent up with a switch
>>>>>> for the atomic clock selecting between old physics (transmit at 10.23
>>>>>> MHz to be received on the ground at 10.23 MHz) and with compensation for
>>>>>> general relativity time dilation (transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz to be
>>>>>> received on the ground at 10.23 MHz, or a clock difference of 38µS/day).
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, usual lie of stupid Mike. The switching
>>>>> was made in exactly opposite direction - from
>>>>> "proper time" of his idiot gurus to ordinary t'=t.
>>>> There you go again, janitor. You get everything backwards by stating
>>>> what actually happened was backwards.
>>>
>>> Oppositely, you get everything backwards by stating
>>> that 9 192 631 770, i.e your ISO/proper time idiocy - is
>>> some "Newton mode".
>> Once again, that's not even wrong.
>
> Once again, that IS wrong and you wrote it
> many times. Wanna quotings?

No, the part about ISO/proper time is what's "not even wrong".
Calling the "Newton setting" the relativity setting and vice versa is
back-asswards so is simply wrong.